Delhi HC recognises right to be forgotten, says digital records cannot subject individuals to endless reputational harm
By Sushil Batra, New Delhi, June 1
The Delhi High Court has recognised the "Right to Be Forgotten" as an integral facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that individuals cannot be condemned to suffer perpetual reputational and personal harm merely because information about them remains indefinitely searchable in the digital domain.
Delivering a significant judgment on a batch of petitions concerning online accessibility of judicial records and internet search results, Justice Sachin Datta observed that privacy in the digital age is not merely about secrecy but about an individual's control over the dissemination of personal information.
The Court noted that informational privacy encompasses informational self-determination, the right of a person to decide what information about them is disclosed, to whom, and for what purpose.
The Court observed that the permanence of online information can adversely affect employment opportunities, professional advancement, social standing, personal relationships and dignity.
It held that the right to be forgotten has evolved as a constitutional response to the reality that digital records often remain accessible forever, even when their continued availability serves little or no public purpose.
Addressing the balance between privacy and the principle of open justice, the Court clarified that transparency in judicial proceedings does not mean that individuals must remain perpetually identifiable through name-based internet searches.
It is observed that an acquittal buried deep in search results, while allegations, arrests or accusations continue to dominate online searches, cannot be regarded as an aspect of open justice.
The Court held that de-indexing and masking are constitutionally permissible tools to reconcile privacy rights with public access to judicial records. It explained that de-indexing does not erase information or judicial records but merely removes their discoverability through name-based searches.
Similarly, masking involves replacing names and personal identifiers in publicly accessible digital records while preserving the original judicial record in court archives.
Justice Datta emphasised that masking is not censorship and does not affect the reasoning, findings or precedential value of judgments. Rather, it prevents a person's name from becoming the searchable key that unlocks sensitive judicial records for casual public access.
The Court further observed that once an individual has been acquitted, discharged, or otherwise cleared by a competent court, the continued association of that person's name with allegations in the digital space may inflict disproportionate harm on dignity and reputation.
It was remarked that the "shadow of crime" should not be allowed to replace the "shadow of dignity" after the legal process has vindicated an individual.
Significantly, the Court held that where de-indexing is warranted, such directions may operate across all domains and versions of a search engine, observing that a remedy capable of being defeated by merely changing a domain suffix would not provide meaningful protection to the fundamental right to informational privacy.
The judgment lays down detailed principles governing de-indexing and masking requests, while also identifying categories where such relief may not be available, including cases involving offences against women or children, breaches of public trust and other matters where overriding public interest continues to exist. (ANI)
The batch of petitions was heard over an extended period. Advocates Rohit Madan and Akash Vajpai appeared in the lead matter, while Senior Advocates Akhil Sibal and Arvind Nigam were among the counsel who addressed the Court in the connected cases. Nigam appeared on behalf of Google LLC.
The ruling is expected to become a landmark precedent on digital privacy, online reputation and the evolving contours of the Right to Be Forgotten in India.
— ANI
Reader Comments
I appreciate the court's balanced approach. The judgment clearly says this right is not absolute and won't apply to cases involving crimes against women or children. That's important because we can't let privacy arguments shield real criminals. But for someone who was falsely accused and acquitted, this is a lifeline. Good judgment! 👍
Interesting ruling. The "shadow of dignity over shadow of crime" line is powerful. Having worked in recruiting, I've seen how easy it is to Google someone and make snap judgments based on outdated allegations. This could actually help people who've turned their lives around. But I wonder how search engines will practically implement this across all domains.
This is a progressive step! In our country, a single baseless allegation can destroy someone's entire career and family life. I know a neighbour who was falsely accused in a property dispute - even after winning the case, the FIR still shows up when you search his name. This judgment gives hope to such people. 👏
Good ruling but I hope it doesn't become a tool for the rich and powerful to scrub their controversial past. The exceptions for crimes against women and children are welcome, but we need clear guidelines. Otherwise, this could be misused by politicians and businessmen to hide their corruption cases. The devil will be in the implementation.
As someone who works in media, this is a nuanced issue. On one hand, people deserve a second chance. On the other hand, we need transparency in judicial matters. I think the court has struck a reasonable balance by preserving the original records in archives while removing searchability. But I worry about the chilling effect on
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.