Delhi High Court Criticizes Legal Portals for Altering Judgment Paragraphs
The Delhi High Court recently expressed concerns over the practice by legal resource websites such as Manupatra and SCC Online of altering the paragraph numbers and grammatical elements of court judgments. The Division Bench, comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar, emphasized that such modifications could misrepresent the court’s intentions.
Justice Shankar noted, “You cannot change the para numbers given by the court. Manupatra and SCC Online liberally assign their own para numbers. I find it objectionable. Sometimes, the way you punctuate or break up a paragraph may convey a different impression than what the court intends.” The Justice highlighted discrepancies in paragraph numbering among different legal resources, stressing the potential misinterpretation of judicial orders.
Case on Right to Privacy and the “Right to be Forgotten”
This issue was discussed during a hearing involving Indian Kanoon, an online legal database, which appealed against a single-judge ruling from May 29. The ruling provided guidelines on obscuring personal details in publicly accessible judgments to uphold privacy and the “right to be forgotten” for certain litigants. Individuals sought to dissociate themselves from concluded legal proceedings, prompting the directive for Indian Kanoon to restrict name-based search functionality.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Indian Kanoon, argued that the ruling unfairly targeted the platform amidst numerous legal databases. He asserted, “I have a right to run my business without any hindrance. I have a right to put judgments in the public domain. We just give headnotes for all the judgments and may provide paragraph numbers if not given by the court.” Datar stressed that Indian Kanoon’s purpose is to offer free access to court judgments to the public.
Debate on Accessibility and Legal Transparency
Datar further contended that, unlike Google which may only show news articles, Indian Kanoon provides comprehensive judgments. “Google will not give the judgment in detail, Google will only give newspaper reports. By putting me on par with others is impermissible because I am only permitting judicial record and you cannot block access to a judgment at any cost,” he argued.
More Read
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, opposing Indian Kanoon’s appeal, argued that de-indexed judgments remain accessible through case numbers and citations. However, the court acknowledged that disabling name-search options across all legal databases would complicate access for lawyers and individuals alike. “If this principle is applied universally, finding judgments would become impractical,” the court observed, emphasizing the difficulty of relying solely on case numbers for searches.
Despite these considerations, the court showed an inclination to stay the single-judge’s directive against Indian Kanoon, yet refrained from issuing an interim stay order. The case is scheduled for further hearing on October 2. Advocates Apar Gupta, Naman Kumar, and Uzma Sheikh also represented Indian Kanoon in the proceedings.
