The Delhi High Court recognised the Right to Be Forgotten, holding that individuals can seek removal of online judicial records in appropriate cases. The Court said digital erasure protects informational self-determination, dignity, and privacy from perpetual exposure to outdated past events.
The Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark judgment on the “Right to Be Forgotten,” holding that individuals may, in appropriate cases, seek the removal of judicial records from internet search results and request masking of their personal information from publicly accessible digital court records.
Justice Sachin Datta outlined the framework for de-indexing and masking personal information contained in judicial records that are accessible online.
In a 144-page judgment delivered on May 29, Justice Datta decided a set of petitions filed by different individuals ranging from those who had been acquitted or discharged, to parties in matrimonial disputes, and persons whose names featured incidentally in court proceedings seeking removal of links, masking of identities, or de-indexing of judicial records from internet search results.
ALSO READ: Right to Trauma Care Is Part of Right to Life: Supreme Court Seeks Nationwide Reform
The Court remarked,
“The right to be forgotten thus reflects the evolution of privacy in response to the permanence of online information. In a society where digital records are virtually indelible, the ability to seek erasure ensures that informational self-determination remains effective. It protects individuals from perpetual exposure to past events that may no longer bear relevance, while preserving their dignity and autonomy in the society,”
The Court examined a significant constitutional question arising in the digital era: whether a person whose name appears in judicial records available on the internet can invoke the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and seek de-indexing of those records from search engines as well as masking of personal identifiers from publicly accessible judgments.
The petitioners included persons who had been acquitted in criminal cases, individuals whose FIRs had been quashed, parties involved in matrimonial disputes, persons discharged from criminal proceedings, and even those whose names appeared only incidentally in court records.
They argued that despite favourable outcomes in their cases, internet searches continued to associate them with allegations, investigations, arrests, or personal disputes, causing ongoing prejudice in their professional and personal lives.
The Court noted that the issue stands at the intersection of constitutional law and modern technology. It observed that the digital age has transformed the accessibility of judicial records. Information that earlier remained buried in physical court files can now be instantly located through a simple internet search, potentially affecting a person’s reputation for years after legal proceedings have concluded.
The petitioners relied upon the “Right to Be Forgotten,” arguing that it forms part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
They contended that the continued online availability of judgments, court orders, news reports, and search results connected to their names caused disproportionate harm and violated their informational privacy.
Several petitioners stated that despite acquittals, closure reports, settlements, or quashing of criminal proceedings, internet searches continued to display content suggesting criminal involvement. Others pointed out that judgments relating to matrimonial disputes contained highly personal information regarding marriages, family disputes, settlements, and private allegations. Some petitioners also sought protection because their names appeared in proceedings despite not being accused of any wrongdoing.
The Court extensively examined the concepts of privacy, informational privacy, and the Right to Be Forgotten. It also considered the competing principle of open justice, which requires judicial proceedings and court decisions to remain accessible to the public to ensure transparency and accountability within the justice system.
The judgment discusses the role of search engines, online legal databases, media platforms, and digital archives in the dissemination of judicial information. It analyses how technological advancements have increased the reach and permanence of information available online, creating new challenges for balancing privacy rights with public access to court records.
The Court further examined whether judicial records should be de-indexed from name-based searches, the circumstances in which personal details may be masked, and the legal standards that should govern such requests. It also considered situations where de-indexing may not be appropriate because of overriding public interest or other legal considerations.
The judgment categorises the petitions into different groups, including cases involving acquittals, discharge orders, quashing of criminal proceedings, settlements and compounding of offences, matrimonial disputes, and other private matters.
The Court then applies the legal principles governing the Right to Be Forgotten to each category.
Case Title: LAKSH VIR SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS