Introduction
In today’s digital world, information posted online can remain forever. The “right to be forgotten” (RTBF) has emerged as an important privacy protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This right allows people, in limited circumstances, to ask for removal or hiding of outdated personal information online, protecting their dignity and allowing them to move forward with their lives. However, this right is not unlimited—it must give way to open justice, free speech under Article 19(1)(a), and public interest. Indian courts have applied it carefully, mainly after acquittals or in sensitive cases, while refusing blanket removals that could harm transparency.
What Is the Right to Be Forgotten?
The right to be forgotten empowers individuals to request removal or hiding of irrelevant personal data from search engines and databases, preventing permanent digital stigma. This concept originated in Europe—most notably in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 17—where it balances privacy against freedom of expression. In India, it evolved as an extension of privacy rights, not as a standalone legal right, and is always balanced against constitutional values like judicial openness.
Key Features of the Right to Be Forgotten
- Allows removal or masking of outdated or irrelevant personal information
- Aims to prevent lifelong digital stigma
- Not an absolute right and subject to public interest
- Balanced against freedom of speech and open justice
Constitutional Foundation: The Puttaswamy Judgment
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 established privacy as fundamental to Article 21’s right to life and dignity. A nine-judge bench explicitly recognized a qualified right to be forgotten within the broader right to privacy, permitting erasure of data no longer necessary or relevant. However, the Court cautioned against treating it as absolute: the right must defer to public interest, health, archiving, research, or legal claims. This framework provides legal legitimacy but leaves detailed rules to legislation and case-by-case court decisions.
Limitations Recognized by the Supreme Court
- Public interest and transparency
- Freedom of expression
- Health, research, and archival purposes
- Ongoing or potential legal claims
Statutory Evolution: From Bills to the DPDP Act
Early drafts of the Personal Data Protection Bill (2019) proposed an explicit right to be forgotten, allowing individuals to restrict disclosures by organizations, with exceptions for journalism and compliance. Later versions diluted this provision. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which is being implemented in phases, includes a “right to correction and erasure” under Section 12. Individuals can demand erasure after withdrawing consent or once the purpose is fulfilled, but organizations may keep data for legal obligations.
Comparison With the GDPR Framework
| Aspect | GDPR (EU) | India (DPDP Act) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Right | Explicit right to be forgotten | Right to correction and erasure |
| Scope | Broad and detailed | Narrow and conditional |
| Enforcement | Regulatory authorities | Primarily courts and future rules |
Unlike GDPR’s robust right to be forgotten, India’s version is narrower. Until full rules are notified, most claims rely on Articles 21 and 19 through High Court petitions under Articles 226–227.
Key Court Decisions
Karnataka High Court
Sri Vasunathan v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2017)
In the 2017 case Sri Vasunathan v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424), the Karnataka High Court ordered removal of a woman’s name from online court records in a quashed criminal case to protect her reputation. The court saw this as aligned with privacy trends in sensitive cases involving women. This set a precedent for protecting vulnerable parties without erasing entire records.
- Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424
- Date of Decision: January 23, 2017
- Judge: Justice Anand Byrareddy
Delhi High Court Cases
1. Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021)
In Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2306), the Delhi High Court granted interim protection to an American citizen of Indian origin who was acquitted of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Court directed Google and Indian Kanoon to remove or block the judgment from search results, recognizing that continued online availability harmed his employment prospects. This case highlighted the balance between the right to privacy and the public’s right to information.
- Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2306
- Date of Decision: April 12, 2021
- Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
2. ABC v. State (2024)
In ABC v. State (2024 SCC OnLine Del 8113), Justice Amit Mahajan ordered masking of an acquitted man’s name on platforms such as Indian Kanoon, finding that perpetual online accusations violated dignity. The Court stressed tailored relief—by replacing names with initials such as “ABC” and “XYZ”—to preserve judicial integrity while upholding Article 21. The Court stated that there is no public interest in keeping information alive online after quashing of proceedings.
- Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8113
- Date of Decision: November 6, 2024
- Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Madras High Court
Karthick Theodore v. Registrar General
In Karthick Theodore v. Registrar General (W.A.(MD) No. 1901 of 2021), a Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and R. Vijayakumar allowed redaction of an acquitted man’s name from online court records, balancing open justice with privacy harms such as visa denials. The court directed the High Court Registry to redact the name and other identifying details and further directed Indian Kanoon to take down the unredacted judgment.
- Date of Decision: February 27, 2024
- Bench: Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and R. Vijayakumar
- Earlier Decision Reversed: 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2755
Supreme Court Stay
However, the Supreme Court stayed this order in iKanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Karthick Theodore, SLP (C) No. 15311 of 2024, on July 24, 2024. The Supreme Court expressed concerns about directing removal of entire judgments, which are public records, and has agreed to determine the law on this issue.
Comparative Overview of Key Decisions
| Court | Case | Relief Granted | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karnataka High Court | Sri Vasunathan (2017) | Removal of name from online records | Protection of reputation in sensitive cases |
| Delhi High Court | Jorawer Singh Mundy (2021) | De-indexing from search results | Privacy versus public access |
| Delhi High Court | ABC v. State (2024) | Masking of names | Dignity under Article 21 |
| Madras High Court | Karthick Theodore (2024) | Redaction and takedown | Balancing open justice and privacy |
Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court in Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine Ker 7337) took a more restrictive approach. The Court held that:
- Claims for protection of personal information based on right to privacy cannot co-exist in an open court justice system
- Right to be forgotten cannot be claimed in current proceedings or proceedings of recent origin
- Publishing and reporting of judgments is part of freedom of speech and expression
- Only the legislature can fix grounds for invoking such a right
- However, in appropriate cases involving family matters or after considering facts, circumstances, and duration, courts may permit de-indexing or removal of personal information
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 7337, decided on December 22, 2022 by Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen
Gujarat High Court
In Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat (2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2019), the Gujarat High Court denied a request to remove details of an acquittal from public records, emphasizing that court orders should remain accessible and form part of public record.
Balancing Privacy And Free Speech
The right to be forgotten inherently conflicts with Article 19(1)(a)’s guarantee of free speech, including access to truthful reports and judgments essential for accountability. Courts resolve this through proportionality tests: relief favors outdated, disproportionate data affecting private individuals (e.g., after acquittals), but not public officials or matters of systemic importance.
Key Factors Courts Consider Include:
- Nature of proceedings (acquittal favors relief)
- Public utility of the information
- Person’s role (public figure vs private person)
- Time elapsed since the event
- Platform type (search engines more amenable to de-indexing than core court records)
Enforcement Against Intermediaries
Courts have extended the right to be forgotten to private entities like Google and Indian Kanoon, directing de-indexing under their inherent powers. However, without clear statutory rules, enforcement risks becoming ad-hoc. The DPDP Act’s provisions may strengthen this, but exemptions for lawful processing remain.
Current Status And Future Directions
The Supreme Court is currently examining the scope of the right to be forgotten, particularly concerning judicial records. The case iKanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Karthick Theodore, SLP(C) No. 15311/2024 has been tagged with Alka Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 19/2024. As of late 2024, these cases remain pending and are expected to harmonize the divergent views of different High Courts on privacy, archiving, and media freedoms.
Future DPDP rules may provide clearer safeguards, ensuring the right to be forgotten empowers individuals without whitewashing important information from public scrutiny.
Practical Guidance For Litigants
To invoke the right to be forgotten:
- Frame claims carefully: Base your petition on the Puttaswamy judgment and relevant High Court precedents
- Address counterarguments: Anticipate Article 19 (free speech) concerns with evidence of actual harm and minimal public interest in continued disclosure
- Seek appropriate relief: Request anonymization (masking names with initials) rather than complete deletion, which aligns better with judicial principles
- Show necessity: Demonstrate that the information is outdated, no longer relevant, and causes real harm to your personal or professional life
- Consider timing: The more time has passed since the event, and the less public interest involved, the stronger your case
Conclusion
Until legislative clarity emerges, the right to be forgotten endures as a nuanced tool—protecting dignity in an age where the internet never forgets, yet remaining tethered to democratic transparency and open justice. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision will be crucial in defining the boundaries of this evolving right in Indian law.
