Recently, the Delhi High Court recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as an integral component of informational privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and formulated a detailed framework for de-indexing and masking personal information contained in judicial records available online. The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions filed by individuals seeking the removal of search engine links, the de-indexing of judicial records, and the masking of personal identifiers appearing in court documents. Examining the impact of digital permanence on privacy, dignity, and reputation, the Court observed, “humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget.”
Brief facts:
The case arose from a batch of writ petitions filed by individuals seeking recognition and enforcement of the Right to Be Forgotten in the digital age. The Petitioners included persons who had been acquitted, discharged, or had criminal proceedings quashed or settled, as well as parties to matrimonial disputes and individuals whose names appeared in judicial records only incidentally. They contended that despite the conclusion of proceedings, online searches continued to display judicial records, reports relating to criminal cases, and other personal information, adversely affecting their privacy, dignity, reputation, and future prospects. The petitions primarily sought de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results and masking of personal identifiers in publicly accessible court records. The central issue before the Court was whether such relief could be granted as part of the right to informational privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Petitioners argued that the continued online accessibility of judicial records containing their names infringed their rights to privacy, dignity, reputation, and informational autonomy under Article 21. Counsel submitted that, despite being acquitted, discharged, or otherwise exonerated, many petitioners continued to be associated with criminal allegations or private disputes through internet search results. Relying on the evolving doctrine of the Right to Be Forgotten, it was contended that de-indexing and masking would balance privacy interests with public access to information by preserving judicial records while limiting indiscriminate public exposure.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondents contended that judicial records are public records protected by the principle of open justice and that search engines merely facilitate access to lawfully available information. The Counsel argued that Indian law does not expressly recognise a statutory Right to Be Forgotten and that permitting de-indexing or removal of judicial records could adversely affect freedom of speech, press freedom, transparency in judicial administration, and the public's right to know. While acknowledging privacy as a fundamental right, the Union of India submitted that any relief must be balanced against competing constitutional values and public interest considerations.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Sachin Datta observed, “The right to be forgotten, understood as subsuming the right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility, where such information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose, flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21.”
The Court held that the right to be forgotten is not a standalone statutory creation but flows directly from the constitutional guarantee of informational privacy. It observed that an individual's right to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility is rooted in dignity, autonomy, and privacy protected under Article 21. The Court emphasized that when information no longer serves a legitimate public purpose or has lost relevance, continued unrestricted digital accessibility may unjustifiably interfere with fundamental rights. At the same time, the Court clarified that the right is not absolute and remains subject to constitutional scrutiny based on legality, necessity, and proportionality.
The Bench noted, while referring to the case K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, that information uploaded online often acquires a permanent character. It observed that individuals evolve, reform, and move beyond past mistakes, but digital footprints continue to follow them indefinitely. The Court emphasized that privacy protects a person's ability to reinvent oneself and not remain perpetually judged by past events. The Court observed, “People change and an individual should be able to determine the path of his life and not be stuck only on a path of which he/she treaded initially. An individual should have the capacity to change his/her beliefs and evolve as a person.”
The Court observed, “The thread running through all these decisions is that even where fundamental rights come into conflict, the balance is not absolute but contextual, requiring careful attention to purpose, relevance, and the potential impact on individual reputation and dignity.” The Bench added, “The decisive consideration is always whether disclosure serves any integral public welfare function.”
The Bench noted that masking involves replacing names and personal identifiers with neutral references while leaving the substance of the judgment untouched. It noted that such a process does not affect the reasoning, findings, precedential value, or institutional function of judicial decisions. The Court emphasized that the objective is merely to break the automatic digital association between an individual's identity and the judicial record. Thus, masking serves privacy interests without compromising transparency.
The Court Observed, “Masking is therefore not censorship or suppression of judicial records, but a precisely calibrated intervention that gives effect to the right to informational privacy while preserving the full requirements of open justice.” “A person's name ceases to function as the searchable key that unlocks the record for casual public access”, added the Bench.
The Court rejected the argument that the right to be forgotten cannot be enforced in the absence of a dedicated statute. Referring to established constitutional jurisprudence, it observed that courts are duty-bound to protect fundamental rights even where legislative gaps exist. The Court clarified that it was not creating new law but applying existing constitutional principles to contemporary challenges arising from technological developments. According to the Court, constitutional guarantees cannot be rendered ineffective merely because the legislature has yet to enact a specific framework.
Lastly, the Bench stated, “This Court is unable to subscribe to the view that the absence of specific legislation on the ‘right to be forgotten’ deprives Constitutional Courts of jurisdiction to evolve appropriate principles.” The Court also mentioned that “Constitutional Courts are not merely empowered but duty-bound to step in.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Delhi High Court recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as a facet of informational privacy protected under Article 21 and held that requests for de-indexing and masking must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by balancing privacy, dignity, and reputation against competing considerations such as open justice and freedom of expression. The Court clarified that these remedies do not erase judicial records but limit disproportionate harm arising from unrestricted digital accessibility of personal information. It further held that eligible litigants may seek such relief in accordance with the principles laid down by the Court.
Case Title: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1021/2016
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sachin Datta
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Rohit Madan, Adv. Akash, Sr.Adv. Arvind Nigam, Adv. Mamta R. Jha, Adv. Rohan Ahuja, Adv. Shruttima Ehersa, Adv. Amishi Sodani, Adv. Aiswarya Debadarshini, Adv. Ankit Tripathi, Adv. Sanya Sehgal, Adv. Vareesha Irfan, Adv. Sugandha Chhibbeer, Adv. Jahanvi Agarwal & Ors.
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Aditi Mohan, Adv. Sparsh Goel, Adv. Abhimanyu Chopra, Adv. Kushagra Jain, Adv. Akhilesh & Ors.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :