Delhi High Court Expands the "Right to Be Forgotten"
In a landmark judgment that could significantly reshape India's digital privacy landscape, the Delhi High Court has recognized the "Right to Be Forgotten" (RTBF) as an integral facet of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Sachin Datta in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Others, addressed a batch of petitions seeking protection against the continued online availability of judicial records, news reports, and personal information that allegedly caused lasting reputational harm.
The Court observed that the perpetual accessibility of information through search engines and digital legal databases can adversely affect an individual's dignity, reputation, employment opportunities, and social life, particularly in cases where the person has been acquitted, discharged, exonerated, or involved in private disputes that have subsequently been resolved.
Recognizing informational privacy as a constitutional value, the Court held that the Right to Be Forgotten naturally flows from Article 21 and enables individuals, in appropriate circumstances, to seek de-indexing of judicial records from search engines and masking of personal identifiers in publicly accessible court documents.
The Court laid down a structured framework governing such requests. It clarified that relief would not be automatic and that courts must undertake a balancing exercise between privacy rights, freedom of expression, public interest, transparency, and the principle of open justice.
The judgment directed that once a valid masking order is issued, search engines and legal databases may be required to disable name-based searches and de-index relevant records. However, the Court emphasized that the Right to Be Forgotten cannot be used as a tool to rewrite history or conceal information that remains relevant to public accountability.
Certain categories of cases, including offences involving women or children, matters affecting public trust, and issues of substantial public interest, may not qualify for such relief. The Court stressed that each request must be evaluated on its own facts.
The ruling is being viewed as one of the most significant privacy judgments in recent years and is expected to influence future litigation involving digital privacy, data protection, online reputation, and the governance of judicial records in the digital era.
The decision also aligns with the growing global recognition of the Right to Be Forgotten while adapting the doctrine to India's constitutional framework and judicial transparency requirements.