DISSERTATION PROPOSAL
TITLE : The Right to Be Forgotten in the Digital Age Balancing Data Erasure Rights with Competing Public Interests and Jurisdictional Challenges
Author: Kariyappa BD
INTRODUCTION
The advent of digital technology has fundamentally transformed the landscape of personal data management, creating what scholars term a “permanent digital memory.” Unlike traditional systems where information naturally faded from public consciousness with time, the internet has created an unprecedented scenario where personal information, once published, can remain indefinitely accessible through search engines, archives, and databases. This permanence poses significant challenges to individual dignity, privacy, and the ability of persons to rehabilitate their social standing and reputations.
The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) emerged as a pivotal legal concept in response to this challenge, first formally recognized by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Google Spain v. Mario Costeja González (2014). The judgment established that individuals possess a fundamental right to request the removal of personal information from search engine results, even when the original publication was lawful. This landmark decision laid the foundation for Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which codified the right to erasure across the European Union.
India’s legal landscape has similarly evolved to recognize privacy as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. More recently, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has introduced the Right of Erasure under Section 12(3), implicitly incorporating the principles of the Right to Be Forgotten. However, India’s approach differs significantly from the EU model, with the right being subject to numerous exceptions and lacking explicit codification of the RTBF itself.
Problem Identification
Despite the growing legal recognition of the RTBF across different jurisdictions, its practical implementation presents formidable challenges that remain inadequately addressed in Indian legal scholarship and jurisprudence
First, Jurisdictional and Territorial Fragmentation The internet operates as a decentralized, borderless system, yet the Right to Be Forgotten is territorial in nature. The Google Spain judgment established that search engine deindexing should occur within specific jurisdictions (e.g., the .es domain in Spain), yet this creates a fragmented landscape where data remains accessible in other jurisdictions. For India, the DPDP Act’s territorial scope remains ambiguous regarding enforcement against international platforms and data storage infrastructure located outside India.
Second, Conceptual Ambiguity and Legal Interpretation While the GDPR explicitly codifies the RTBF, the DPDP Act does not use the term “Right to Be Forgotten” but rather incorporates it within the broader “Right of Erasure.” This terminological and conceptual distinction creates interpretive difficulties. Courts have yet to definitively establish whether the DPDP Act encompasses the same broad deindexing rights as the GDPR or whether it is limited to direct deletion from data fiduciaries’ systems.
Third, Irreconcilable Tensions with Competing Fundamental Rights The most significant challenge lies in balancing the RTBF against freedom of expression, freedom of information, right to information, and public interest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, including the press’s right to publish historical information. Existing judicial approaches (including those in Google Spain and recent Delhi High Court judgments) have created conflicting precedents regarding when RTBF claims should prevail over public interest considerations.
Fourth, Technical Implementation Barriers Distinguishing between “data deletion” (temporary removal with potential recovery) and “data erasure” (permanent, irretrievable destruction) presents formidable technical and legal challenges. Additionally, the decentralized nature of internet data storage including cloud systems, cached versions, and thirdparty backups makes complete erasure practically difficult. The requirement for certification of erasure further complicates compliance mechanisms.
Fifth, Inadequate Institutional Framework India currently lacks a dedicated adjudicatory authority akin to the EU’s Data Protection Authorities. The Data Protection Board of India, envisaged under the DPDP Act, has not yet been constituted, creating an enforcement vacuum. This absence impedes the development of consistent jurisprudence and procedural norms for RTBF requests.
Significance for Academic and Practical Discourse
This dissertation addresses a critical lacuna in Indian legal scholarship by undertaking a comprehensive examination of the RTBF within the specific context of India’s constitutional framework, statutory provisions, and judicial development. The topic is particularly timely given
The imminent operationalization of the DPDP Act and the establishment of the Data Protection Board
Recent judicial interventions by the Delhi High Court and other courts attempting to carve out RTBF protections in the absence of express statutory provisions
The growing global recognition of data protection as integral to human dignity and constitutional rights
India’s emergence as a major digital economy with significant implications for data governance
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY AND RESEARCH GAPS IDENTIFICATION
The foundational paper by Fabbrini and Celeste (2020), “The Right to Be Forgotten in the Digital Age: The Challenges of Data Protection Beyond Borders,” provides essential conceptual frameworks for understanding RTBF within a global context. The paper highlights the central tension between the European Union’s extraterritorial enforcement of data protection law termed data protection imperialism and other states’ assertions of “digital sovereignty” over data within their territories. Through comprehensive analysis of EU jurisprudence, particularly the landmark Google Spain decision, and comparative examination of Canadian and Australian approaches, Fabbrini and Celeste establish RTBF as a fundamental right while acknowledging the international comity challenges that arise from its extraterritorial enforcement.
However, significant scholarly and practical gaps persist, presenting substantial opportunities for dissertation research. Most critically, the FabbriniCeleste analysis predates India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, and therefore provides no examination of India’s distinctive approach to data erasure rights under Section 12(3) or the evolving Indian jurisprudence on RTBF. The paper’s focus on Western jurisdictions (EU, US, Canada, Australia) similarly neglects emerging data protection frameworks in Global South countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and ASEAN member states, where alternative models divergent from the EUcentric paradigm are being developed. Additionally, the paper does not address recent technological complexities arising from artificial intelligence and machine learning, particularly regarding data deletion and the viability of “machine unlearning” as a technical solution to RTBF requirements.
Key research gaps identified for this dissertation include
First, IndiaSpecific Legal Framework Analysis An indepth examination of how India’s DPDP Act Section 12(3) operationalizes the right of erasure, how Indian courts are interpreting RTBF principles in the absence of explicit statutory codification (particularly in Delhi High Court and other High Court judgments), and how the nascent Data Protection Board of India will enforce these rights given institutional and resource constraints.
Second, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Implications Exploration of how RTBF principles apply when personal data is embedded in neural networks and AI training datasets, assessment of machine unlearning techniques as potential compliance mechanisms, and examination of emerging liability questions regarding AI systems that reproduce personal data indirectly.
Third, Global South Data Protection Models Comparative analysis of emerging frameworks in Brazil (LGPD), South Africa (POPIA), ASEAN nations, and African Union member states to identify alternative approaches beyond the imperialism/sovereigntism binary and understand how developing nations address RTBF with limited regulatory capacity.
Fourth, Practical Enforcement Mechanisms Detailed examination of how different Data Protection Authorities enforce RTBF in practice, resource allocation and capacity constraints in developing jurisdictions, compliance costs for data controllers and platforms, and effectiveness of different institutional models for RTBF adjudication.
Fifth, Technical Implementation Standards Analysis of technical distinctions between data deletion, deindexing, and complete erasure examination of blockchain and distributed ledger conflicts with erasure requirements and development of appropriate certification and verification standards for RTBF compliance.
Addressing these gaps will advance scholarship by extending foundational theoretical frameworks into contemporary, locallyrelevant, and technologically complex landscapes. For India specifically, such research will contribute directly to the developing jurisprudence and regulatory frameworks that courts and the Data Protection Board will establish as the DPDP Act is implemented.
3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS
3.1 Primary Objectives
The dissertation pursues the following primary research objectives
1. To provide a comprehensive legal analysis of the Right to Be Forgotten across the GDPR framework, EU jurisprudence, and Indian constitutional and statutory law, identifying convergences and divergences in approach.
2. To examine the conceptual relationship between the explicit “Right to Be Forgotten” under international law and the implicit “Right of Erasure” under Section 12(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, analyzing whether India’s framework adequately protects the RTBF.
3. To analyze the substantive and procedural mechanisms through which competing rights (privacy, freedom of expression, right to information, public interest) are balanced in RTBF adjudication, with particular focus on judicial approaches in India, the EU, and comparative jurisdictions.
4. To identify and address the technical, jurisdictional, and institutional challenges impeding the effective implementation of RTBF rights, particularly in the context of search engine deindexing, decentralized data storage, and crossborder data flows.
5. To propose a comprehensive, constitutionallygrounded framework for the Right to Be Forgotten in India that reconciles privacy protection with democratic values of transparency, freedom of expression, and public accountability.
Research Questions
The dissertation addresses the following specific research questions
RQ1 Conceptual Framework
What are the fundamental principles underpinning the Right to Be Forgotten, and how has the concept evolved from its judicial recognition in Google Spain (2014) to its current manifestation across the GDPR and emerging national frameworks?
Does India’s recognition of the Right of Erasure under Section 12(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, adequately encompass the broader dimensions of the RTBF, or does it constitute a narrower conception of data protection rights?
RQ2 Balancing Competing Rights
How do courts in different jurisdictions (EU, India, US, UK) balance the RTBF against freedom of expression, right to information, and public interest considerations?
What principled approach should Indian courts adopt when adjudicating conflicts between RTBF claims and the press’s freedom to maintain archives, particularly in cases involving spent criminal convictions, acquittals, or matters of historical significance?
Can a jurisprudential framework be developed that protects individual dignity and privacy while preserving the transparency and accountability essential to democratic governance?
RQ3 Territorial and Jurisdictional Issues
What are the jurisdictional and territorial limitations of RTBF enforcement, and how should Indian courts approach requests for search engine deindexing when platforms are headquartered abroad but target Indian users?
How does the DPDP Act’s territorial scope (processing within India and outside India for services offered in India) apply to international platforms’ compliance with RTBF requests? Should India adopt Google Spain’s approach (jurisdictionspecific deindexing) or push for comprehensive global delisting?
RQ4 Technical and Institutional Challenges
What are the practical and technical distinctions between data deletion and data erasure, and what standards and certifications should be required for demonstrating compliance with RTBF requests?
How can the Data Protection Board of India, once constituted, develop procedural and substantive norms for RTBF adjudication that balance efficiency with fairness and consistency?
What mechanisms can ensure that RTBF protections extend beyond search engines to encompass archives, social media platforms, and other data repositories?
RQ5 Sui Generis Indian Framework
Given India’s constitutional commitment to both privacy rights and freedom of expression, and considering India’s distinct cultural, historical, and socioeconomic context, what modifications should be made to adapt global RTBF frameworks to the Indian context?
How should RTBF protections account for India’s specific challenges, such as castebased discrimination, genderbased violence records, criminal historybased stigma, and their persistence in digital archives?
Research Gap
1. Absence of Clear Legislation There is no separate statute in India that defines the scope, criteria, or procedures for exercising the RTBF, resulting in uncertainty for both individuals seeking to erase information and for courts adjudicating such requests.
2. Judicial Inconsistency Indian courts have recognized RTBF in several instances, but the absence of clear guidelines has led to inconsistent decisions and unpredictable outcomes.
3. Balancing Conflicting Rights Existing literature highlights persistent challenges in balancing the RTBF with other fundamental rights—especially the right to freedom of expression and public access to information.
4. Technological and Implementation Barriers While some research considers legislative or conceptual aspects, there is limited empirical study on technological barriers, enforcement challenges, and digital compliance infrastructure in the Indian context.
5. Comparative Perspective Missing Few studies provide a detailed comparative analysis between India’s evolving RTBF jurisprudence and established frameworks like GDPR, especially regarding practical lessons and policy recommendations.
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Research Design
This dissertation adopts a mixedmethod legal research approach, combining doctrinal legal analysis with socio legal and comparative law methodologies.
4.2 Primary Research Methods
A. Doctrinal Legal Research
This forms the core methodological foundation and includes
1. Statutory Analysis Detailed examination of
• Article 17 of the GDPR (2016) and its implementation directives
• Section 12(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2021 (Rule 3(1)(c))
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, particularly provisions on privacy and defamation
• Relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and criminal procedure frameworks
• The Right to Information Act, 2005, and its interface with RTBF
2. Constitutional Jurisprudence Analysis Indepth examination of
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and its recognition of privacy as a fundamental right
• Subsequent Supreme Court judgments on privacy, dignity, and the right to be forgotten
• Constitutional provisions on freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and their limitations
• Article 21 protections and their evolution in the digital context
3. Case Law Analysis Systematic analysis of
• CJEU and ECJ judgments on the RTBF, with particular focus on Google Spain and subsequent cases
• Indian High Court and Supreme Court judgments addressing digital privacy, reputation, and erasure rights
• Comparative jurisprudence from UK, Australia, and other common law jurisdictions
Comparative Legal Analysis
The dissertation adopts a comparative approach examining
1. Jurisdictional Comparison
• The EU’s GDPRbased framework and its adjudication by the CJEU and national DPAs
• India’s DPDP Act framework and judicial development
• The UK’s approach postGDPR
• Emerging approaches in AsiaPacific jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong)
• The US approach (absence of comprehensive federal RTBF legislation)
2. Institutional Comparison Analysis of different models for adjudicating RTBF disputes
• EU Data Protection Authorities and their decisionmaking practices
• Indian data protection frameworks and the emerging role of the Data Protection Board
• Courtbased adjudication in different jurisdictions
• Industry selfregulatory mechanisms
SocioLegal Research
This includes
1. Analysis of Implementation Challenges Examination of practical barriers to RTBF implementation, including technical, institutional, and social dimensions through
• Review of DPA decision records and compliance reports
• Analysis of RTBF request volumes, approval rates, and denial rationales across jurisdictions
• Examination of platform privacy policies regarding erasure procedures
2. Impact Assessment Understanding the lived experience of RTBF in different contexts through
• Review of published case studies and research on RTBF impact
• Analysis of media discourse on privacy, surveillance, and digital forgetting
4.3 Secondary Research Methods
Literature Review
Comprehensive review of
• Academic journal articles on the RTBF from law, privacy, technology, and ethics perspectives
• Monographs and books addressing digital privacy and data protection
• Policy papers and reports from organizations such as the International Privacy Commissioner’s Office, ODI UK, and Niti Aayog
• Technical literature on data deletion and erasure standards (NIST SP 80088, DoD 5220.22M)
Document Analysis
Analysis of
• Legislative drafting materials and explanatory memoranda for the DPDP Act
• Official guidance documents from EU DPAs and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
• Platform privacy policies and data processing guidelines
• Public statements and decisions by data protection authorities
Data Sources
rimary Sources
• Legislation GDPR, DPDP Act 2023, IT Rules 2021, BNS 2023, ITA 2000
• Case Law CJEU decisions, Indian judicial precedents, UK and other jurisdictional authorities
• Official Documents EDPB Guidelines, Data Protection Commissioner guidance, DPA decision records
Secondary Sources
• Academic databases SSRN, Google Scholar, Westlaw, LexisNexis
• Policy documents World Economic Forum, UNESCO, national legislatures
• Technical standards NIST publications, GDPR compliance frameworks
Analytical Framework
The research employs
1. Doctrinal Analysis Traditional legal analysis of statutes, precedents, and constitutional principles to understand the current legal position
2. Principled Balancing Framework Adopting principles articulated in Google Spain and subsequent cases to develop a multifactor balancing test applicable to Indian contexts
3. Comparative Institutional Analysis Examining different institutional approaches to RTBF adjudication and their effectiveness
4. RightsBased Approach Grounding analysis in fundamental human rights principles of dignity, privacy, and freedom of expression to develop normative propositions
5. PROPOSED CHAPTER OUTLINE
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background The Permanence of Digital Memory and Its Challenges
1.2 Emergence of the Right to Be Forgotten as a Legal Concept
1.3 Problem Statement Tensions, Lacunae, and Implementation Challenges
1.4 Research Objectives and Questions
1.5 Significance and Scope of the Dissertation
1.6 Methodology
1.7 Chapter Scheme
Chapter 2 Conceptual Foundations and International Frameworks
2.1 Introduction The Evolution of RTBF as a Legal Concept
2.2 Historical Trajectory From Google Spain to GDPR
2.2.1 The Google Spain v. Mario Costeja González Judgment (2014)
2.2.2 The Court’s Reasoning on Data Processing and Fundamental Rights
2.2.3 Implications for Search Engine Liability and Data Control
2.3 Article 17 of the GDPR Legal Codification and Operationalization
2.3.1 Scope and Applicability of the Right to Erasure
2.3.2 Conditions for Exercising RTBF Grounds and Limitations
2.3.3 Obligations of Data Controllers and Processors
2.4 The Right to Be Forgotten as a Fundamental Right
2.4.1 Dignity, Privacy, and Informational SelfDetermination
2.4.2 The Temporal Dimension Information Decay and Relevance
2.4.3 Human Autonomy and Control over Personal Narrative
2.5 Conceptual Distinction between Deletion and Erasure
2.5.1 Technical Definitions and Compliance Standards
2.5.2 Practical Challenges in Complete Data Destruction
2.6 Conclusion Key Conceptual Elements and Their Significance for Indian Application
Chapter 3 The Right to Be Forgotten and Competing Fundamental Rights—The Balancing Framework
3.1 Introduction Reconciling Multiple Fundamental Rights
3.2 Freedom of Expression and Information as Competing Rights
3.2.1 Constitutional Dimensions Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
3.2.2 The Press’s Right to Maintain Archives and the Public Sphere
3.2.3 Democratic Accountability and Transparency Concerns
3.3 The Right to Information Under RTI Act, 2005 and Its Interface with RTBF
3.3.1 Public Records Exception and Government Accountability
3.3.2 Limitations of RTI and Its Intersection with Privacy Rights
3.4 Judicial Balancing Mechanisms in Different Jurisdictions
3.4.1 The CJEU’s Proportionality Analysis in Google Spain and Subsequent Cases
3.4.2 EU Data Protection Authorities’ DecisionMaking and Balancing Criteria
3.4.3 Indian Judicial Approach Recent Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court Judgments
3.4.4 Comparative Analysis UK, Australia, and Other Jurisdictions
3.5 Development of a Principled MultiFactor Balancing Test
3.5.1 Nature, Sensitivity, and Relevance of Archived Information
3.5.2 Time Elapsed Since the Event and Contemporary Relevance
3.5.3 Public Importance and the Status of the Data Subject
3.5.4 Degree of Accessibility and the Permanence of Digital Records
3.5.5 The Conduct and Rehabilitation of the Individual
3.6 Special Categories Criminal Records, Acquittals, and Spent Convictions
3.6.1 The Particular Case for RTBF Protection in Criminal Justice
3.6.2 Acquittals and Quashed Convictions The Presumption of Innocence in Perpetuity
3.6.3 GenderBased Violence Records and Victim Protection
3.6.4 Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration Imperatives
3.7 Conclusion Toward a Principled but ContextSensitive Balancing Framework
Chapter 4 Jurisdictional Challenges, Technical Barriers, and Implementation Issues
4.1 Introduction The Practical Dimensions of RTBF Implementation
4.2 Territorial and Jurisdictional Fragmentation
4.2.1 The Internet’s Borderless Nature vs. Territorial Sovereignty
4.2.2 Google Spain’s JurisdictionSpecific Approach European (.eu), National Domains (.de, .es, .fr), and Global Delisting Debates
4.2.3 CrossBorder Data Flows and Conflicting Legal Obligations
4.2.4 Application to India DPDP Act’s Territorial Scope and Its Implications
4.3 Technical and Operational Challenges
4.3.1 Data Storage Infrastructure Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems
4.3.2 Distinction Between Deindexing (Removal from Search Results) and Complete Deletion
4.3.3 Cached Versions, Archived Copies, and ThirdParty Repositories
4.3.4 Certification and Evidence of Erasure
4.3.5 Technical Standards NIST Guidelines and Industry Best Practices
4.4 PlatformSpecific Implementation Challenges
4.4.1 Search Engines Google, Bing, and Emerging Platforms
4.4.2 Social Media Platforms Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and UserGenerated Content
4.4.3 News Archives and Publishing Platforms
4.4.4 Government Databases and Official Records
4.4.5 Deep Web and Encrypted Networks
4.5 Institutional and Procedural Barriers
4.5.1 The Absence of a Constituted Data Protection Board in India
4.5.2 Lack of Uniform Procedures for RTBF Requests
4.5.3 Resource Constraints and Capacity Issues
4.5.4 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
4.6 Costs, Incentives, and the Role of Private Actors
4.6.1 Compliance Costs for Platforms and Data Controllers
4.6.2 Incentive Structures and Regulatory Deterrence
4.6.3 SelfRegulatory vs. RegulatoryBacked Approaches
4.7 Conclusion The Reality of Imperfect Implementation
Chapter 5 The Right to Be Forgotten Under Indian Law—Constitutional Foundations and Statutory Framework
5.1 Introduction India’s Path to Recognizing RTBF
5.2 Constitutional Foundations
5.2.1 Right to Privacy Under Article 21 From K.S. Puttaswamy to Contemporary Jurisprudence
5.2.2 Privacy as a Dimension of Human Dignity
5.2.3 Informational Privacy and Control Over Personal Narrative
5.2.4 Right to Be Forgotten as an Implicit Constitutional Right
5.3 Statutory Framework The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
5.3.1 Legislative Intent and Evolution
5.3.2 Section 12(3) Right of Erasure and Its Scope
5.3.3 Conditions for Erasure Withdrawal of Consent and Purpose Limitation
5.3.4 Exemptions to the Right of Erasure (Section 12(3) proviso)
5.3.5 Obligations of Data Fiduciaries
5.3.6 Limitations of the DPDP Act Framework
5.4 Complementary Legal Provisions
5.4.1 Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2021 Rule 3(1)(c)
5.4.2 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Privacy and DataRelated Provisions
5.4.3 The Right to Information Act, 2005 Limitations and Exceptions
5.5 Comparison GDPR’s Article 17 vs. DPDP Act’s Section 12(3)
5.5.1 Similarities Scope of Erasure and Conditions for Requesting
5.5.2 Divergences Explicit vs. Implicit Recognition, Deindexing vs. Deletion
5.5.3 India’s Narrower Approach and Its Implications
5.6 Judicial Development and Interpretation
5.6.1 Supreme Court’s Position Privacy as Fundamental, RTBF as Implicit Component
5.6.2 Delhi High Court’s Recent Judgments Emerging Jurisprudence on Digital Forgetting
5.6.3 Bombay High Court and Other High Courts Divergent Approaches
5.6.4 Absence of Coherent Jurisprudential Development
5.7 The Proposed Data Protection Board Role in Interpreting and Enforcing RTBF
5.8 Conclusion India’s Current Legal Framework—Promising but Incomplete
Chapter 6 Comparative Analysis and Learning from Global Experience
6.1 Introduction The Value of Comparative Analysis
6.2 The European Model
6.2.1 GDPR Article 17 Comprehensive Right to Erasure
6.2.2 Data Protection Authorities’ Decisions and Emerging Jurisprudence
6.2.3 Successes and Limitations of the European Approach
6.3 The UK Model PostGDPR Approach
6.3.1 Data Protection Act 2018 and Its Provisions on Erasure
6.3.2 Information Commissioner’s Office Guidance and Practice
6.3.3 UKSpecific Challenges and Adaptations
6.4 Emerging Asian Models
6.4.1 Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act
6.4.2 Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance
6.4.3 Lessons for India from Similar Jurisdictions
6.5 The Absence of RTBF in the United States
6.5.1 Constitutional and Common Law Limitations
6.5.2 Emerging StateLevel Legislation (California, Virginia, etc.)
6.5.3 Alternative Mechanisms Libel Tourism, Reputation Management, Privacy Torts
6.6 Thematic Analysis Common Challenges and Solutions Across Jurisdictions
6.6.1 Balancing Mechanisms and Proportionality Analysis
6.6.2 Institutional Approaches and Adjudication Models
6.6.3 Technical Standards and Implementation Guidelines
6.6.4 Public Interest Exceptions and Their Interpretation
6.7 Implications for India’s Development of RTBF Framework
Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations A Framework for India
7.1 Summary of Key Findings
7.2 Synthesis The Current State of RTBF in India and Its Inadequacies
7.3 Toward a Comprehensive Indian Framework for the Right to Be Forgotten
7.3.1 Legislative Recommendations
• Explicit Codification of RTBF in the DPDP Act
• Delineation Between Deindexing and Complete Deletion
• Specification of Institutional Mechanisms and Procedures
7.3.2 Judicial Recommendations
• Development of Coherent Jurisprudence Based on Principled Balancing
• Guidelines for Lower Courts on RTBF Adjudication
• Recognition of RTBF as Integral to Privacy and Dignity
7.3.3 Institutional Recommendations
• Expedited Constitution of the Data Protection Board
• Development of Procedural Rules and Guidelines
• Capacity Building and Expert Training
7.3.4 Technical and Operational Recommendations
• Establishment of Certification Standards for Data Erasure
• PlatformSpecific Guidelines for Different Data Repositories
• Cooperation Mechanisms with International Platforms
7.4 Special Considerations for India’s SocioLegal Context
7.4.1 Addressing CasteBased Discrimination and Historical Stigma
7.4.2 GenderBased Violence Records and Victim Rehabilitation
7.4.3 LGBTQ+ Rights and Digital Forgetting
7.4.4 Criminal Justice Reform and Rehabilitation Imperatives
7.5 Future Challenges and Emerging Issues
7.5.1 Artificial Intelligence, Automated DecisionMaking, and Data Retention
7.5.2 Deepfakes, Synthetic Media, and the Permanence of False Information
7.5.3 Emerging Platforms and Technologies
7.6 Concluding Reflections Privacy, Dignity, and Democracy in the Digital Age
6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (DETAILED)
6.1 Materials and Resources to Be Utilized
Legal Databases and Archives
• Indian legislation and parliamentary records (PRS India, Indian Kanoon)
• CJEU case law and GDPR implementation resources (EURLex, Google Scholar)
• Indian case law (SCCOnline, Legal Information Institute databases)
• Law review articles and dissertations
Data Protection Authority Decisions and Guidance
• EDPB guidelines and decisions on RTBF
• National DPA decisions from France, Germany, Spain, and other European jurisdictions
• Case studies and compliance reports
Technical and Standards Literature
• NIST Special Publications on data security and erasure
• ISO standards on information security
• Platformspecific privacy policies and technical documentation
7. SIGNIFICANCE AND EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION
7.1 Academic Contribution
This dissertation will make significant contributions to Indian legal scholarship by
1. Filling a Critical Gap Providing the first comprehensive Indian legal analysis of the Right to Be Forgotten in the context of the DPDP Act 2023 and Indian constitutional law.
2. Developing Jurisprudential Frameworks Creating a principled, multifactor balancing test applicable to Indian RTBF adjudication that reconciles privacy with competing rights.
3. Advancing Comparative Legal Analysis Offering nuanced comparative insights into how different jurisdictions approach RTBF, with specific focus on lessons for India’s unique constitutional and sociolegal context.
4. Addressing Implementation Challenges Providing practical analysis of technical, institutional, and jurisdictional barriers to RTBF implementation and proposing concrete solutions.
7.2 Policy and Practical Significance
The dissertation will be of immediate utility to
1. Policymakers and Parliament In refining the DPDP Act and developing subsidiary legislation and rules.
2. The Data Protection Board In developing procedural guidelines and decisionmaking frameworks for RTBF adjudication.
3. Courts In developing coherent jurisprudence on RTBF adjudication in line with constitutional principles.
4. Data Protection Practitioners In advising clients on RTBF compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
5. International Platforms In understanding Indian legal requirements and developing compliance frameworks.
7.3 Relevance to Rule of Law and Constitutional Democracy
By addressing the intersection of privacy, freedom of expression, and digital governance, this dissertation contributes to broader conversations about maintaining human dignity and democratic accountability in the digital age.
Landmark Cases
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017 (10) SCC 1
• Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (CJEU Case C131/12)
• Recent Delhi High Court judgments on digital privacy and erasure rights
Academic References (Representative Selection)
• A. Turow, “The Right to Be Forgotten Balancing Privacy and Transparency” (2021)
• K. Faisal, “Balancing between Right to Be Forgotten and Freedom of Expression” (2021)
• V. Szeghalmi, “Difficulties Regarding the Right to Be Forgotten” (2020)
• Articles from SSRN, Google Scholar on RTBF
Comparative Analysis Resources
• EU Data Protection Board (EDPB) Guidelines 05/2022 on the Right to Erasure
• European Data Protection Authorities’ Decisions on RTBF
• UK Information Commissioner’s Office Guidance
• Data Protection Authority decisions from Germany, France, and Spain
8. PRELIMINARY BIBLIOGRAPHY (Selected References)
Legislation and Authoritative Documents
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016
• Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules 2021
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• Right to Information Act, 2005
• Indian Constitution, 1950
Bibliography
Bhardwaj, A. (2025, April 17). Right to be forgotten in India Balancing privacy and public interest. International Journal of Law and Legal Research. Retrieved from https//ijllr.com
Chambers. (2024, September 15). The right to be forgotten in Indian law. Chambers Legal Research. Retrieved from https//chambers.com
Dave, D. B. v. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC Online Guj 2019 (Gujarat High Court, 2015).
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, § 12, (India).
Gupta, R., & Sharma, S. (n.d.). Right to be forgotten. International Journal of Modern Research. Retrieved from https//ijmr.net.in
Ikanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd v. Karthick Theodore & Ors., SLP(C) No. 15311/2024 (Supreme Court of India, 2024).
International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Initiative. (n.d.). Right to be forgotten with special reference to Indian jurisprudence. IJHSSI. Retrieved from https//ijhssi.org
Karthick Theodore v. Registrar General, Madras High Court & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2755 (Madras High Court, 2021).
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India, 2017).
Legal 500. (2025, April 21). Right to be forgotten The ongoing battle between privacy and transparency. Legal 500. Retrieved from https//legal500.com
Maheshwari & Co. (2025, April 14). The right to be forgotten. Maheshwari & Co. Law Firm. Retrieved from https//maheshwariandco.com
Mondaq. (2024, December 16). Supreme court stays Madras HC’s right to be forgotten order. Mondaq Business Briefing. Retrieved from https//mondaq.com
Neeti Niyaman. (2025, September 2). Right to be forgotten in India Digital privacy & law. Neeti Niyaman. Retrieved from https//neetiniyaman.com
Oxford Brookes Essays. (2024, April 17). How to identify research gaps. Oxford Brookes Essays. Retrieved from https//oxbridgeessays.com
Patel, S., & Verma, N. (2025, January 27). A critical evaluation of the right to be forgotten in India. The Amicus Quriae. Retrieved from https//theamikusqriae.com
Priya, M., & Reddy, A. (n.d.). Erasing the past The right to be forgotten in India—Progress, pitfalls and prospects for a legal framework. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research. Retrieved from https//ijfmr.com
