The Delhi High Court recently held that the “right to be forgotten” forms part of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The ruling paves the way for individuals to seek protection against the continued online availability of personal information that causes undue harm.
In his ruling, Justice Sachin Datta observed that privacy rights must evolve to address the realities of the digital age, where information once placed online can remain accessible indefinitely.
“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,” he said in the judgment.
The ruling came on a batch of petitions filed by individuals seeking removal, de-linking or de-indexing of online material connected to past legal proceedings.
Also Read
The petitioners contended that even after disputes had been resolved or criminal cases had ended in acquittal, internet searches continued to associate them with those proceedings, adversely affecting their personal and professional lives.
The cases before the Court involved a range of situations, including acquitted accused persons, parties to matrimonial disputes and individuals whose names appeared in judicial proceedings despite having only a peripheral connection to the litigation.
Apart from seeking the removal of news reports, several petitioners also sought directions against legal databases and search platforms that host court records. They argued that disclosure of names in searchable online judgments enabled easy identification through internet searches, undermining their privacy.
Addressing these concerns, the Court laid down guiding principles for considering requests to conceal personal information in judicial records. It clarified that any such exercise must strike a balance between privacy rights and the principle of open justice.
Under the framework prescribed by the Court, names and identifying details may be masked while leaving the substantive reasoning, findings and conclusions of judgments untouched. The Court emphasised that redaction should not compromise the authenticity or evidentiary value of judicial records.
It further directed that unredacted copies of judgments would continue to remain part of official court records and be accessible to courts, litigants and competent authorities for legitimate legal purposes. The masking exercise would extend to both existing digital records and future online versions of judgments.
The Court also held that once a masking order is granted, search engines and legal databases would be required to ensure that the judgment no longer appears in searches based on an individual’s name.
Recognising the continuing nature of harm caused by online disclosure, the Court said requests seeking such relief should be dealt with expeditiously. It added that courts would retain the authority to revisit, modify or withdraw masking orders if circumstances warrant such a course.
Raheel Patel, partner, Gandhi Law Associates, said the judgment tries to strike a balance, protecting an individual’s dignity and reputation in the digital age without erasing judicial records altogether.
“Practically, it means a person may seek relief where old court records continue causing disproportionate reputational harm online, though the underlying orders remain part of the public record. The ruling could become an important reference point in India’s evolving privacy jurisprudence,” he said.
“While the ruling strengthens informational privacy in the digital age, its long-term impact will depend on how courts balance privacy rights against transparency and market needs. A key challenge and the next phase of the debate are likely to focus on implementation — particularly how de-indexing orders intersect with practical realities of legal and commercial due diligence, disclosure norms and investor protection considerations,” said Ankita Singh, managing partner, A&P Partners.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 