Should One Court Case Define You Forever? Why Delhi HC Backs Right To Be Forgotten
Should One Court Case Define You Forever? Why Delhi HC Backs Right To Be Forgotten Written By, Last Updated: June 02, 2026, 11:10 IST The
Should One Court Case Define You Forever? Why Delhi HC Backs Right To Be Forgotten Written By, Last Updated: June 02, 2026, 11:10 IST The Delhi High Court's 144-page judgment is the first detailed attempt to establish clear principles for dealing with personal information embedded in online judicial records Rapid Read The judgment arose from a batch of petitions where people argued that even after cases ended in their favour, internet searches of their names continued to throw up court orders, news reports and legal documents. (AI-Generated Image) In a landmark ruling that could reshape digital privacy in India, the Delhi High Court has formally recognised the “right to be forgotten" as part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sachin Datta while deciding a batch of more than 30 petitions, lays down a detailed framework for when individuals can seek the masking, de-indexing or removal of their personal information from online judicial records, Live Law reported. The ruling also directs search engines such as Google and legal databases such as Indian Kanoon to disable name-based searches in certain categories of cases. The decision is being seen as one of the most significant judicial pronouncements on privacy rights in India since the Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment recognised privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. What Is The ‘Right To Be Forgotten’? The “right to be forgotten" refers to an individual’s ability to seek the removal, masking or restriction of personal information from public digital access when that information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose.
Recognising the right as a constitutional protection flowing from informational privacy, the court was quoted as saying by Live Law: “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." Why Was The Court Hearing The Matter? The judgment arose from a batch of petitions filed over the past decade by people who had been acquitted, discharged, involved in matrimonial disputes, or whose names appeared incidentally in court records. Bar & Bench reported that many argued that even after cases ended in their favour, internet searches of their names continued to throw up court orders, news reports and legal documents, causing lasting reputational harm and affecting employment, social relationships and personal dignity. The central question before the court was whether individuals could seek de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results and masking of personal identifiers from publicly accessible digital court records. What Has The Court Ordered? The Delhi High Court directed authorities, search engine operators and legal database platforms to de-index and disable their “name-based search functionality" in respect of judgments, orders and news articles cited by the petitioners. The court did not order deletion of judicial records. Instead, it drew a distinction between de-indexing, masking and removal. Under the framework, names and personal identifiers may be masked from publicly accessible versions of judgments, while the substantive contents of the judgments remain available.
Search engines can be required to stop displaying such records in name-based searches. However, the judgments can still be accessed through case numbers, citations, court details or dates. Who Can Seek Protection Under The Judgment? The court said after a case ends in acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement, or is private in nature, the individuals may seek the removal or masking of personal information from online judicial records where continued accessibility causes disproportionate harm to their privacy, dignity and reputation. The framework broadly applies to persons acquitted of criminal charges, persons discharged from criminal proceedings, cases that have been quashed or settled, parties involved in matrimonial and family disputes, and individuals whose names appear only incidentally in judicial records. Does This Mean Court Orders Will Disappear From The Internet? No. One of the key aspects of the ruling is that it seeks to balance privacy rights with judicial transparency. The court specifically directed: “The reasoning, findings, legal conclusions, case number, court details, etc., remain publicly accessible. The complete and unredacted version of the judgement is preserved in the court’s internal records. Masking applies only to the publicly accessible digital versions. The unredacted version remains accessible to courts, parties, advocates, and authorities." In other words, the legal record survives. What changes is the ease with which an individual’s name can be linked to it through internet searches. Are There Any Exceptions? Yes. The court made clear that the right is not absolute and must be balanced against competing constitutional values. Justice Datta observed that any claim for de-indexing or masking must be weighed against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, open justice principles and the public’s right to know.
De-indexing will generally not be appropriate in cases involving offences against women and children, serious crimes, or matters involving breaches of public trust where public interest considerations remain significant. Why Is This Judgment Significant? Until now, Indian courts had recognised aspects of the right to be forgotten in individual cases. However, there was no comprehensive framework governing how courts, search engines and legal databases should handle such requests. The Delhi High Court’s 144-page judgment is the first detailed attempt to establish clear principles for dealing with personal information embedded in online judicial records. The ruling could have implications for thousands of individuals whose names continue to appear online years after they were acquitted, discharged or involved in private disputes. News18 Newsletter Handpicked stories, in your inbox A newsletter with the best of our journalism submit About the Author Apoorva Misra Apoorva Misra is News Editor at News18.com with over nine years of experience. She is a graduate from Delhi University's Lady Shri Ram College and holds a PG Diploma from Asian College of Journalism,... Read More First Published: June 02, 2026, 11:08 IST News explainers Should One Court Case Define You Forever? Why Delhi HC Backs Right To Be Forgotten Disclaimer: Comments reflect users’ views, not News18’s. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Loading comments...
The BriefWire