Author: Eddu Rama Kashyap
College: Nyaya Vidya Parishad Law College
LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rama-kashyap-eddu-46b00830b?utm_source=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=member_ios
ABSTRACT
In a significant legal decision made on 30 May 2026, which was reported on 2 June 2026, the Delhi High Court officially acknowledged the “Right to be Forgotten” as an essential part of the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court ruled that people should not be continually exposed to their personal data due to unrestricted searches of judicial records, especially when cases have ended with charges dropped, settlements reached, or acquittals recorded.
This judgment creates a structure for removing judicial records from search engines and legal databases, while still allowing public access to court records through neutral identifiers like case numbers and citations.
The ruling aims to strike a balance between two key constitutional rights: an individual’s right to privacy and dignity, and the public’s right to know and have access to justice.
INTRODUCTION
The quick growth of digital databases and search engines has changed how public records are handled.
Information that was once hard to find can now be easily accessed with just a name search. While technology has improved transparency, it has also raised concerns about people being permanently labeled due to their past legal issues.
In a group of over thirty cases regarding the online availability of judicial records, the Delhi High Court considered whether individuals who have had their cases resolved should still face damage to their reputation from the ongoing visibility of court proceedings online.
Justice Sachin Datta noted that privacy means more than keeping information secret—it also includes controlling how personal information is shared on the internet.
As a result, the Court recognized the Right to be Forgotten as a way to protect people from constant digital tracking.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal freedom.
Over time, the courts have broadened this to include:
•Right to privacy
•Right to dignity
•Right to reputation
•Right to control personal information
The Delhi High Court ruled that allowing unrestricted access to judicial records through name-based searches can harm these constitutional rights.
2. Right to Privacy
The Right to be Forgotten is part of the general idea of privacy in digital spaces.
It allows people to ask for personal information to be limited when it no longer serves a valid public purpose and causes serious harm.
3. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not directly state a comprehensive Right to be Forgotten in the context of judicial records, the Court stressed that constitutional courts have the authority to protect privacy rights even when there is no specific law in place.
THE DELHI HIGH COURT’S MAIN FINDINGS
The Court outlined several main points:
A. Right to Be Forgotten Is Part of Article 21
The Court clearly said that the Right to be Forgotten is a core part of the constitutional rights to privacy and dignity.
B. Unlimited Search by Name Is Unfair
The Court noted that allowing unrestricted searches of judicial records by a person’s name serves no useful purpose once a case has ended in favor of the individual.
C. De-Indexing Is Not Erasing
The Court clarified that de-indexing does not mean deleting records.
Records remain accessible via:
•Case numbers
•Citation references
•Court details
•Judgment dates
Only name-based searches are limited.
D. Open Justice Must Be Maintained
The Court balanced privacy against the principle of open justice by ensuring that court rulings remain publicly available.
E. Relief Is Not Given in Every Case
The Court said that relief must be given on a case-by-case basis.
Public interest, the seriousness of the case, and the nature of the proceeding are important factors.
CASE LAWS AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Principle:
The Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Relevance:
The Delhi High Court relied on the privacy principles from Puttaswamy to understand informational privacy and digital rights.
2. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protecciónde Datos (2014) C-131/12
Principle:
The European Court of Justice formally accepted the Right to be Forgotten.
Relevance:
This case showed that people can ask for the removal of links to outdated or irrelevant personal information on search engines.
3. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2021)
Principle:
The Karnataka High Court recognized the Right to be Forgotten in specific situations, especially when dealing with personal data.
Relevance:
This judgment helped with the growing acceptance of the Right to be Forgotten in Indian courts.
4. Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021)
Principle:
The Delhi High Court ordered that online judgments be removed from search results after the petitioner was acquitted.
Relevance:
This case contributed to the current decision by showing the harm of continued online presence.
5. Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 4 SCC 1
Principle:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of dignity and reputation as constitutional values.
Relevance:
The ruling supports the argument that people should not face long-term digital prejudice.
LEGAL IMPORTANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
This judgment is important for several reasons:
Protection of Reputation
An individual who has been acquitted or discharged should not face negative social or professional consequences because their case remains easily searchable online.
Recognition of Informational Self-Determination
The Court reinforced the idea that people should have some control over how their personal information is accessed and shared.
Development of Indian Privacy Law
This decision marks another step in the growth of privacy law in India, following the landmark Puttaswamy case.
Guidance for Search Engines and Legal Databases
The judgment provides clear rules for:
•Search engines
•Legal information platforms
•Digital service providers
These entities may be required to implement de-indexing measures where necessary.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
While the judgment strengthens privacy rights, certain challenges remain:
Absence of Statutory Framework
India currently lacks comprehensive legislation governing the Right to be Forgotten in relation to judicial records.
Balancing Transparency and Privacy
Excessive de-indexing could potentially affect transparency and academic research concerning judicial proceedings.
Implementation Difficulties
Uniform implementation across multiple search engines, legal databases, and digital archives may prove complex.
Need for Clear Guidelines
Future judicial or legislative guidance is required to determine:
• Eligibility criteria,
• Procedural safeguards,
• Scope of relief,
• Appeals and review mechanisms.
Nevertheless, the Court has attempted to strike a careful balance between privacy and open justice.
CONCLUSION
The Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment marks a significant development in Indian constitutional and privacy jurisprudence. By recognizing the Right to be Forgotten as an extension of Article 21, the Court has acknowledged the realities of the digital era, where information can remain accessible indefinitely and continue to affect an individual’s reputation, dignity, and life opportunities.
Importantly, the Court did not advocate erasure of judicial history. Instead, it adopted a balanced approach by permitting de-indexing of personal identifiers while preserving public access to court records through conventional legal references. The decision strengthens the principles of informational privacy and human dignity while maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
As India continues to develop its data protection and privacy framework, this judgment is likely to serve as a foundational precedent in shaping the future contours of the Right to be Forgotten.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
1. What is the Right to be Forgotten?
The Right to be Forgotten allows individuals to seek restriction or removal of access to personal information that is no longer relevant, necessary, or serving a legitimate public interest.
2. Does the Delhi High Court’s judgment delete court records?
No. The Court clarified that judicial records will continue to remain publicly accessible. The relief granted is generally in the form of de-indexing or masking personal identifiers.
3. Who can seek protection under this judgment?
Individuals who have been acquitted, discharged, whose proceedings have been quashed or settled, or whose names appear incidentally in judicial records may seek relief depending on the facts of the case.
4. Is the Right to be Forgotten expressly recognized in Indian legislation?
At present, there is no comprehensive statutory framework specifically governing the Right to be Forgotten in relation to judicial records. The right has primarily developed through judicial interpretation of Article 21.
5. How does the judgment balance privacy and open justice?
The Court permits restriction of name-based searches while ensuring that judgments remain accessible through case numbers, citations, court details, and dates, thereby preserving transparency in the justice system.
REFERENCES
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
2. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protecciónde Datos, Case C-131/12 (CJEU, 2014).
3. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 523.
4. Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2306.
5. Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 SCC 1.
6. Constitution of India, Article 21.
7. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
8. Delhi High Court Judgment (Justice Sachin Datta, May 2026) on Right to be Forgotten and De-indexing of Judicial Records.
9. The Hindu, “Delhi HC recognises right to be forgotten, lays down rules for de-indexing judicial records” (2 June 2026).
10. The Indian Express, “Do not index legal records online using names, rules Delhi High Court” (2 June 2026).
