SYLLABUS

GS-2: Indian Constitution—Significant Provisions and Basic Structure; Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies. 

Context: The Delhi High Court recently recognised the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) as a facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 and laid down a framework for de-indexing and masking personal information in judicial records available online. 

More on the News

• The case arose from multiple petitions seeking removal, de-indexing, or masking of personal information appearing in court orders, judgments, legal databases, and internet search results. 

• Petitioners argued that continued online availability of such records caused disproportionate harm to their privacy, dignity, reputation, employment prospects, and social life, particularly after acquittal, discharge, or settlement of disputes. 

• The judgment assumes significance amid growing concerns regarding permanent digital footprints, online reputational harm, and the balance between privacy and the principle of open justice.

About the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)

• The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) refers to an individual's right to seek removal, restriction, de-indexing, or reduced accessibility of personal information from the public domain when such information is no longer relevant, necessary, or serves no legitimate public interest. 

• The concept is rooted in the broader rights to privacy, dignity, reputation, and informational self-determination, enabling individuals to exercise greater control over their digital footprints. 

• In India, the courts first engaged with privacy and public records in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), where the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy and held that individuals have a right to safeguard aspects of their private life from unwarranted public disclosure. 

• The constitutional basis of RTBF was further strengthened in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), in which the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 and acknowledged informational privacy as an essential component of individual autonomy. 

• Indian courts have subsequently dealt with RTBF claims in cases such as Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2021), where de-indexing of an acquittal judgment from search-engine results was permitted. 

• Globally, RTBF gained prominence through the Google Spain v. AEPD (2014) judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and was later codified under Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the “Right to Erasure”.

Key Highlights of the Verdict

• RTBF Recognised as a Constitutional Right

• o The High Court held that the Right to be Forgotten flows naturally from informational privacy under Article 21 and protects individuals from perpetual digital exposure, causing harm to dignity and reputation. 
• o It observed that persons cannot be condemned to suffer lifelong reputational consequences merely because information remains indefinitely searchable online. 

• De-Indexing Instead of Deletion

• o The Court drew a distinction between de-indexing and deletion. It clarified that de-indexing removes records from name-based search results, while the underlying judicial record continues to exist and remains accessible through purposeful searches, citations, or court archives.

• Framework for Masking Judicial Records

• o The Court permitted masking/redaction of personal identifiers such as names and sensitive details in appropriate cases. 

• Balancing Privacy with Open Justice

• o The Court emphasised that RTBF is not an absolute right and must be balanced against freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, public interest, transparency, and the principle of open justice.
• o Relief is to be granted based on a proportionality assessment considering the nature of information, its continuing relevance, and the impact on privacy and dignity.

• Directions to Search Engines and Legal Databases

• o Search engines and legal database platforms may be directed to disable name-based search functionality and de-index records where RTBF relief is granted. 
• o The Court clarified that constitutional courts possess the authority to grant such relief even in the absence of a dedicated RTBF statute. 

Significance of the Verdict

• Strengthening Digital Privacy: The judgment significantly advances India's privacy jurisprudence by recognising informational self-determination and greater control over personal digital footprints. 

• Protecting Dignity and Reputation: It safeguards individuals from disproportionate and perpetual reputational harm arising from outdated or irrelevant information available online. 

• Establishing a Judicial Framework: The ruling provides India's first detailed judicial framework governing de-indexing, masking, and RTBF claims in relation to judicial records. 

• Balancing Competing Constitutional Values: By preserving judicial records while restricting indiscriminate digital accessibility, the Court attempts to balance privacy rights with transparency, freedom of expression, and public access to justice.

• Emerging Digital Rights Jurisprudence: The judgment is likely to influence future debates on data protection, intermediary liability, online reputation management, and implementation of privacy rights in the digital age.