Fundamental Rights, DPSP & Fundamental Duties

GS Paper: GS Paper II | Subject: Polity

Prelims

Delhi HC order (Justice Sachin Datta) on right to be forgotten in digital judicial records
K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): SC recognised right to informational privacy under Art. 21
HC ruled: open justice does not require a person's name to be searchable in judicial records — privacy can override discoverability
Art. 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression/press) vs Art. 21 (right to privacy) — classic FR tension
Open justice principle: Public scrutiny of courts, historical record of justice administration
HC reasoning: Search engines excerpt content without context; updating official record doesn't update copies on other websites

16,000+ encounter operations in UP (2017–2025); ~97% survive with leg shot
PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014): SC laid 16 principles for police encounters; independent inquiry mandatory in every case — not followed in UP
Allahabad HC (Jan 2026): Encounter practices driven by official rewards; punishment power belongs exclusively to judiciary
Art. 21: right to life and personal liberty; extra-judicial punishment violates this

The tension: Open justice (public accountability of courts, legal certainty) vs informational privacy (an individual's control over their digital footprint). Both are legitimate, both are constitutional
Problem with HC's approach: Obfuscating a person's name from records preserves the accusation but removes context of acquittal — a searcher finds the charge but not the verdict. This is incomplete, not accurate
Better approach (editorial view): Digital accuracy — ensure court records are complete (acquittals as prominent as charges); require platforms to refresh databases; impose conditions on Indian Kanoon-type sites
Broader digital governance question: As court records are digitised and indexed, the consequences of old accusations persist indefinitely. This creates asymmetry — the state moves on, the individual does not
Europe's GDPR model: Right to be forgotten balanced against freedom of expression and public interest — more sophisticated than blanket de-indexing
GS2 exam angle: FR conflicts (Art. 19 vs Art. 21), judicial interpretation, right to privacy evolution from Gobind (1975) → Puttaswamy (2017) → digital age applications

Self-sustaining system: Political endorsement + promotion incentives + media amplification + weak criminal justice → half-encounters reproduce themselves without legislative sanction
Why legally defensible: Accused survives → produced in court → self-defence claim. State records arrest, not death. Different from "fake encounter" tradition
But rule of law violation: Power to punish belongs to judiciary alone (Allahabad HC). Extra-judicial punishment — even disabling — bypasses due process
Pre-2017 context: Conviction rates below 20% in violent crimes; understaffed investigation → encounters as "pragmatic" shortcut. But state capacity failure cannot justify rights violations
GS4 linkage: Ethics of ends vs means in public service; accountability; integrity under pressure
GS2 exam angle: Fundamental rights (Art. 21 — right against extra-judicial punishment), rule of law, police reforms, accountability mechanisms