The phenomenon of open courts has literally brought justice as well as the justice dispensation system to the doorsteps of citizens. However, there should be a fine balance between the concept of open justice and that of the privacy of the litigant, the judges pointed out. There could be no totalitarian application of either one concept as that would defeat the purpose of both equally valid concepts, they said. The judges further noted that the single judge had dismissed the man’s petition by observing that our criminal justice system is yet to reach such standards where courts can venture to pass orders for redaction of the name of an accused person. Though it may be true, the fallibility or vulnerability of the criminal justice system must not stand in the way of rendition of justice elsewhere, if, when, and where it is called for, they opined. They pointed out that the court, while acquitting the man, had specifically mentioned that he was not acquitted on benefit of doubt and has earned the acquittal by disproving the prosecution case. The acquittal is thus full, complete and unconditional, they said. “The petitioner has moved on and there is no public interest in retaining, as part of public record, a chapter of his life that has no relevance now. The fact that the ‘principle of fresh start’ has been statutorily enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 cannot lead to the conclusion that adults are not entitled to the same,” they observed and directed the Ikanoon web portal to take down the judgement from its site. They also directed the Registry to redact the petitioner’s name and other details relating to his identity from the judgement and ensure that only the redacted judgement is available for publication or for uploading. The full and unredacted version of the judgement should continue to be part of the record of the court, they added.
Source link
