What Is the Right to Be Forgotten?

The Right to Be Forgotten refers broadly to an individual's ability to seek removal, restriction or reduced accessibility of personal information from the digital public domain when that information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose.

It does not necessarily mean that the underlying information is destroyed or that history is erased.

In the context of judicial records, the distinction is particularly important. A court judgment may continue to exist as an official judicial record while its unrestricted name-based discoverability on internet search engines may, in appropriate circumstances, be restricted.

The Constitutional Basis: Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution provides:

The Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India established privacy as a constitutionally protected right. The judgment also recognised informational privacy as an important dimension of individual autonomy and dignity.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy's jurisprudence also provided the constitutional foundation for the idea that individuals should have some degree of control over their personal information and their digital identity.

The Delhi High Court's 2026 judgment builds upon this constitutional foundation and provides a detailed framework for applying the principle specifically to judicial records available online. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

The Problem of Permanent Digital Searchability

The Court was dealing with a problem that is particularly significant in the digital age: the difference between the existence of a judicial record and its permanent discoverability through a person's name.

Consider a person who was accused of a criminal offence but was ultimately acquitted. Legally, the person has been acquitted and the presumption of innocence has been vindicated.

However, if an internet search of that person's name continues to prominently display reports and judicial records relating to the original accusation, the person may continue to face reputational and professional consequences.

The Court observed that in appropriate cases, permanent digital searchability can undermine the practical effect of an acquittal or discharge. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

Right to Be Forgotten vs Right to Erasure

These concepts should not be treated as identical.

What Is De-indexing?

De-indexing is one of the most important concepts in the judgment.

It does not necessarily delete the judgment, news report or other underlying material. Instead, it prevents the person's name from functioning as a searchable route to that material through a search engine.

For example:

The Delhi High Court also held that de-indexing directions under its framework should operate globally across the relevant search engine's domains, because restricting the remedy only to an Indian domain could easily be circumvented by using another domain such as google.com. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

What Is Masking?

Masking is different from de-indexing.

While de-indexing concerns the way information is retrieved through search engines, masking concerns the publicly accessible version of the judicial record itself.

The Court explained that masking can involve replacing names and other identifying details with neutral labels such as “XYZ”.

The purpose is to protect the person's identity while preserving the judicial record and the principle of open justice.

When Can De-indexing Be Granted?

The Delhi High Court did not recognise an unlimited right to make information disappear from the internet.

Instead, the Court developed a framework requiring a balance between the individual's informational privacy, dignity and reputation and competing constitutional interests such as open justice, freedom of speech and expression, transparency and legitimate public interest.

The Court particularly considered categories such as:

• Acquittal
• Discharge
• Quashing of criminal proceedings
• Settlement and compounding
• Purely private civil disputes
• Matrimonial disputes
• Cases involving inaccurate or outdated information

Where the legal proceedings have conclusively ended in favour of an individual and continued name-based searchability no longer serves a legitimate public purpose, the case for de-indexing can become particularly strong. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

The Right Is Not Absolute

The Court made it clear that the Right to Be Forgotten cannot be used as a mechanism for rewriting history or suppressing information merely because it is inconvenient.

The right has to be balanced against legitimate public interests.

The Court identified certain categories where de-indexing or masking may not be appropriate, including:

• Convictions for offences against women or children, where continuing public interest may remain important.
• Convictions involving breach of public trust, including cases involving public servants, elected representatives and persons occupying fiduciary positions.
• Conduct of public figures in their public capacity, where the public has a legitimate interest in continued access to the information.

These are important exceptions because they demonstrate that the Right to Be Forgotten is a qualified constitutional right rather than an absolute right to erase one's past. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

Balancing Privacy with the Principle of Open Justice

One of the most important aspects of the Delhi High Court's judgment is that the Right to Be Forgotten cannot be considered in isolation. It has to be balanced against the principle of open justice.

Judicial proceedings are ordinarily matters of public record. Public access to judgments promotes transparency, accountability and confidence in the judicial system. Courts therefore cannot simply remove judicial records whenever an individual claims that their continued availability causes embarrassment or reputational harm.

The Court's framework attempts to strike a balance between two competing interests:

The remedy must therefore be tailored to the circumstances of each case.

De-indexing Does Not Mean Erasing the Judgment

This distinction is central to understanding the judgment.

Suppose a person is acquitted after criminal proceedings. If the Court grants de-indexing, the judicial record does not disappear from the court's archives merely because the person's name has been removed as a searchable key.

The judgment continues to exist and can remain accessible through appropriate judicial or legal databases. What is restricted is the easy name-based discoverability of the record through search engines.

The former is what makes de-indexing particularly significant in balancing privacy with the principle of open justice.

When Can Masking Be Used?

Masking provides another mechanism for protecting personal identity while retaining the judicial record.

Instead of deleting the judgment, the names and identifying information of individuals can be replaced with neutral identifiers such as “A”, “B”, “X” or “XYZ”.

This can be particularly relevant where continued identification of an individual serves little legitimate public purpose but completely removing the judicial record would interfere with transparency and access to justice.

The Court's framework therefore recognises that privacy protection does not always require destruction of information.

Factors the Court May Consider

A request for de-indexing or masking requires consideration of the circumstances of the particular case. Relevant considerations include:

• Whether the proceedings have ended in acquittal, discharge or another favourable outcome.
• Whether the information is still relevant to a legitimate public interest.
• Whether continued publication causes disproportionate harm to the individual's privacy or reputation.
• Whether the person is a public figure or holds a position involving public trust.
• The nature and seriousness of the offence or dispute.
• The age of the information.
• Whether the information is inaccurate, misleading or incomplete.
• The competing interest of maintaining transparency and open access to judicial records.

The Court's approach therefore involves a balancing exercise rather than an automatic right to remove information from the internet.

Right to Be Forgotten and Freedom of Speech

The Right to Be Forgotten also raises questions concerning Article 19(1)(a), which protects freedom of speech and expression.

The media, researchers, lawyers and members of the public may have legitimate reasons for accessing information concerning court proceedings.

A blanket right to erase information could therefore interfere with freedom of expression and the public's right to receive information.

The Delhi High Court's framework attempts to avoid such a blanket rule by requiring the individual's privacy interests to be balanced against legitimate public interest and other constitutional considerations.

Right to Be Forgotten and Informational Privacy

The concept is closely connected with informational privacy.

Informational privacy concerns an individual's interest in controlling the collection, use, disclosure and dissemination of information relating to them.

In the digital era, the problem is not merely that information exists. Information can be copied, indexed, aggregated and made available globally within seconds.

As a result, information that may once have become practically inaccessible with the passage of time can remain permanently discoverable online.

The Right to Be Forgotten addresses this particular feature of the digital environment.

The Importance of the Puttaswamy Judgment

The constitutional foundation for modern Indian privacy jurisprudence is the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017).

A nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right arising primarily from the guarantees of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

The judgment recognised different dimensions of privacy, including informational privacy.

The Delhi High Court's decision on the Right to Be Forgotten must therefore be understood against this broader constitutional development.

Right to Be Forgotten: Important Terms for RJS

Key Takeaways

• The Delhi High Court recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as a facet of informational privacy under Article 21.
• The judgment is Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters.
• De-indexing removes an individual's name as a searchable key without necessarily deleting the underlying judicial record.
• Masking replaces names and identifying information with neutral identifiers in publicly accessible judicial records.
• De-indexing and masking are different from deletion of the underlying record.
• The Right to Be Forgotten is not absolute.
• The Court must balance privacy, dignity and reputation against open justice, freedom of speech and legitimate public interest.
• The framework provides particular importance to the outcome and nature of the proceedings.
• Certain categories involving public trust, public figures and specified serious offences may attract restrictions on the availability of the remedy.
• The constitutional foundation of informational privacy lies substantially in the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Right to Be Forgotten reflects one of the central constitutional challenges created by the digital age: how to reconcile an individual's right to privacy and dignity with society's interest in transparency and access to information.

The Delhi High Court's judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. provides a detailed framework for addressing this conflict in the context of judicial records.

Importantly, the judgment does not create an unrestricted right to erase one's past. Instead, it recognises that in appropriate circumstances, de-indexing or masking may protect an individual's privacy without destroying the underlying judicial record.

For law students and RJS aspirants, the decision is an important recent development in the continuing evolution of Article 21, informational privacy and digital rights.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

📘 Stay Ahead with Delhi Law Academy!

Get access to free monthly current affairs, read our insightful blogs,
and explore free study resources prepared by experts at DLA Jaipur. 🚀