‘Right to be Forgotten’ and Indian Jurisprudence

GS PAPER II — Polity, Judiciary & Right to Privacy

Why in News? The Delhi High Court, in Laksh Veer Singh Yadav v. Union of India, has clarified the principles behind the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ (RTBF), building fresh jurisprudence to protect the privacy of individuals harmed by persistent digital records.

What RTBF Means and Where It Came From

RTBF gives an individual the right to seek removal, erasure, or de-indexing of personal information from public digital platforms — but only where continued availability causes harm and serves no public interest.

The concept traces back to Mario Costeja González v. Google (2014) before the European Court of Justice, and was later codified under Article 17 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

In India, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, explicitly recognising ‘informational privacy’ and, within it, the right to be forgotten.

How the Delhi High Court Balanced Competing Rights

The Court’s central innovation was applying a proportionality test rather than an all-or-nothing approach. Restrictions apply only to name-based searches; the underlying facts and legal reasoning of a case remain fully public.

Rather than deleting judgments outright — which would undermine open justice — the Court preferred redaction or anonymisation of names, keeping judgments accessible via case number or keyword search.

Where an offence is serious and public interest is high, the right to privacy stays limited; proportionality is reserved mainly for less serious or fully resolved cases, including acquittals.

Where the DPDP Act, 2023 Falls Short

Section 12 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does provide a right to erasure, but it is built around user consent rather than a broader public-interest balancing test.

The Act is largely silent on judicial records and public archives — precisely where RTBF claims are most needed. Compounding this, as of 2026 the Act’s rules remain incompletely notified and the Data Protection Board is not yet fully functional, leaving the right practically toothless for now.

A Proposed Three-Tier Redressal Framework

Straightforward erasure or de-indexing requests would first go to the platform itself — the social media company or search engine. Disputes between platform and user would escalate to the Data Protection Board. Cases involving complex legal questions, high public importance, or court records would go directly to the courts for final resolution.

The Practical Roadblocks That Remain

Search engine algorithms tend to keep the original negative story ranked above later developments, so even a favourable court order doesn’t guarantee an acquittal judgment surfaces first in search results.

De-indexing only works at the level of a specific search engine — it cannot touch mirror sites, archived copies, or content already circulating on social media, and enforcing removal on servers hosted outside India raises serious cross-border legal challenges.

Until the Supreme Court issues nationwide guidelines and the Data Protection Board becomes genuinely operational, RTBF risks remaining a right that exists mostly on paper.

Balancing Privacy Against Open Justice — The Delhi HC’s Approach

Constitutional Value	Point of Conflict	Court’s Balance
Privacy & Dignity (Article 21)	Digital footprints cause continued harassment even after acquittal	Restrict only name-based searches; keep case facts and legal reasoning public
Open Justice & Public Interest	Judgments must stay public for transparency	Prefer redaction/anonymisation over deletion; judgment stays accessible via case number
Freedom of Speech & Press (Article 19(1)(a))	Public’s right to information vs individual privacy	Privacy yields in serious-offence cases; proportionality applies in minor/resolved cases

Way Forward

The Supreme Court should issue clear, nationwide guidelines to ensure legal uniformity on RTBF across High Courts.
The government must make the Data Protection Board fully operational and empowered without further delay.
Legal databases and tech platforms need to build robust technical systems for automatically masking names under court orders.

The Delhi High Court has built a thoughtful legal framework balancing dignity against transparency in the digital age. Turning this into an effective, enforceable right will require Supreme Court-level clarity, a functioning Data Protection Board, and real technical compliance from platforms.

UPSC Note — GS Linkage & Exam Angle This topic combines GS II (fundamental rights, judicial reasoning) with a strong current-affairs technology angle — useful for questions on privacy, data protection, or judicial innovation. The proportionality test and the three-tier redressal framework are good structural anchors for any answer on this topic.

Mains Practice Question Highlighting the deficiencies of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, evaluate the practical and technical challenges faced in effectively implementing the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in the current era of the internet. (250 words, 15 marks)

Prelims MCQ Practice With reference to the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in India, consider the following statements: 1. The right to privacy, including informational privacy, was recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). 2. Section 12 of the DPDP Act, 2023 provides a right to erasure that is primarily based on user consent. 3. The Delhi High Court in Laksh Veer Singh Yadav ordered complete deletion of judgments to protect privacy. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (a) Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect — the Court preferred redaction/anonymisation of names over deleting judgments outright, keeping them accessible via case number or keyword.