Author: Anushka, Babu Jagjivan Ram Institute of Law, BU Campus, Jhansi
TO THE POINT
The exponential growth of the internet and social media platforms has transformed how information is generated, disseminated, and preserved. Once published, online content often remains accessible indefinitely, subjecting individuals to prolonged public scrutiny and possible reputational damage. This is particularly problematic where online records relate to criminal proceedings, especially if the individual concerned has been acquitted or rehabilitated.
In India, the tension between preserving public access to information and protecting personal privacy has become increasingly pronounced. In contrast to regions like the European Union, where the Right to Be Forgotten is expressly acknowledged under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), India does not yet have a definitive legal structure governing this right. The Indian judiciary, however, has been progressively acknowledging the constitutional dimensions of privacy and digital autonomy.
The Bombay High Court judgment in Prathamesh Nagesh Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2024) is a watershed moment in this evolving jurisprudence. The petitioner, acquitted in a criminal case, sought judicial relief to remove or delist online articles that continued to associate him with the allegations, despite the acquittal. The Court observed that allowing such continued disclosure infringes upon the rights to privacy and dignity protected by Article 21, thereby acknowledging the Right to Be Forgotten as a facet of these constitutional rights.
This article explores the contours of this right in India through the prism of Patil’s case, analyzing constitutional provisions, relevant statutory instruments, and comparative jurisprudence. It examines the nuanced relationship between the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) and freedom of expression, emphasizing how these evolving right impacts personal autonomy and the regulation of digital spaces.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The recognition of the Right to Be Forgotten in India requires an understanding of key constitutional principles and legal doctrines:
1. Right to Privacy (Article 21)
Privacy has been constitutionally entrenched as an intrinsic aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 following the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). Privacy encompasses control over personal information, autonomy, and the right to safeguard one’s dignity from unwanted public exposure.
2. Dignity and Reputation
Dignity, a core constitutional value, is inextricably linked with privacy. Persistent online publication of adverse or irrelevant information undermines an individual’s dignity and reputation, affecting social standing and mental well-being.
3. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a))
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech but permits reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which allow regulation in the interest of defamation, privacy, public order, etc. Courts must balance these competing rights carefully.
4. Reasonable Restriction and Proportionality
Any limitation on fundamental rights must satisfy the test of reasonableness and proportionality. In the context of RTBF, courts assess whether restricting access to certain digital content is necessary and balanced against public interest.
5. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Rehabilitation
Post-acquittal, an individual has a legitimate expectation that online references to the criminal allegations will not unduly harm their reputation indefinitely. RTBF helps facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration.
6. Information Technology and Data Protection
Though the Information Technology Act, 2000, governs digital transactions and intermediaries, it lacks explicit RTBF provisions. The pending Personal Data Protection Bill, modeled partly on GDPR, may fill this gap.
THE PROOF
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy expanded this to include privacy, encompassing informational privacy and dignity.
Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression but subject to reasonable restrictions in interests of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, defamation, and contempt of court.
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action.
Statutory Framework
Information Technology Act, 2000: Governs electronic communication but does not address the RTBF directly. Section 79 provides safe harbor to intermediaries but leaves content removal largely at their discretion.
Personal Data Protection Bill (Proposed): Aims to regulate personal data processing, potentially including RTBF rights.
Indian Penal Code: Provisions on defamation (Sections 499-500) and obscenity (Section 292) relate indirectly to online content regulation.
Comparative Law
European Union’s GDPR (2018): Article 17 codifies RTBF, allowing individuals to request erasure of personal data under specified conditions. It balances data protection with freedom of information.
US Jurisprudence: Lacks formal RTBF but uses balancing tests under the First Amendment for content removal.
ABSTRACT
The digital revolution has ushered in an era where vast amounts of personal information are accessible online indefinitely, raising profound questions about privacy, dignity, and autonomy. The emergence of the “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) seeks to address the challenge of permanent online stigmatization, enabling individuals to request the removal of irrelevant, outdated, or harmful information from the digital sphere. India’s legal system has been gradually evolving in this regard, particularly following the Supreme Court’s landmark recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). However, explicit statutory protection for RTBF remains absent.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in Prathamesh Nagesh Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2024) marks a pivotal development in Indian jurisprudence. In this decision, the Court implicitly acknowledged the Right to Be Forgotten as part of the broader right to privacy and personal dignity. It directed the removal of online records concerning the petitioner’s acquittal, emphasizing that continued public access to such information infringes upon fundamental rights. This article delves into an in-depth analysis of the Patil judgment, positioning it within the context of India’s constitutional principles and drawing parallels with global legal trends in digital privacy. It critically assesses the balance between the RTBF and freedom of speech, emphasizing the necessity for coherent legislative intervention to effectively safeguard privacy in the digital age. The article concludes by advocating a nuanced, rights-respecting approach to the regulation of online content, data protection, and individual autonomy over digital footprints.
CASE LAWS
1. Prathamesh Nagesh Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 (Bombay High Court)
In this seminal case, the petitioner, Mr. Patil, was acquitted of criminal charges. Despite acquittal, several online portals continued to display news articles and search engine results associating him with the charges. Mr. Patil petitioned the Court to remove or delist this information from public view, citing violations of his fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and reputation under Article 21.
The Bombay High Court, after detailed deliberations, ruled in favor of Mr. Patil. It held that the indefinite online availability of acquittal-related content imposed an unwarranted stigma, impairing his dignity and privacy. The Court asserted that the Right to Be Forgotten forms an inherent part of the right to privacy and personal liberty, and accordingly instructed intermediaries and digital platforms to delete or delist the objectionable content within a specified period. The judgment emphasized that freedom of speech and expression must be harmonized with privacy rights, and that public interest is not served by indefinite access to outdated or irrelevant information.
This ruling is the first high court judgment in India explicitly recognizing RTBF, setting a precedent for similar cases in the digital era.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
This pivotal judgment by the Supreme Court firmly recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. While not dealing explicitly with RTBF, the judgment laid the constitutional foundation by recognizing informational privacy and autonomy over personal data. It emphasized that privacy encompasses control over one’s digital footprint and the right to safeguard personal dignity from intrusive disclosure.
The Puttaswamy judgment catalyzed subsequent judicial recognition of digital privacy rights, shaping the legal discourse on RTBF in India.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
While not directly on RTBF, this Supreme Court judgment struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, reinforcing freedom of speech and expression on the internet. It laid down stringent tests to prevent arbitrary censorship online, indirectly influencing RTBF considerations by underscoring the need for clear and reasoned restrictions on speech.
CONCLUSION
The Prathamesh Nagesh Patil judgment marks a pivotal advancement in India’s digital rights jurisprudence, affirming the Right to Be Forgotten as an inherent aspect of the fundamental right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment holds significant relevance in today’s digital age, where the enduring nature of online content can lead to lasting damage to an individual’s reputation.
By balancing the RTBF against the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a), the Court delineated a nuanced approach that respects both individual autonomy and public interest. The decision acknowledged that indiscriminate retention and online accessibility of acquittal or rehabilitation-related information is neither necessary nor proportionate.
Nonetheless, the judgment also highlights the limitations of India’s current legal framework, which lacks comprehensive statutory protections for data privacy and RTBF. The proposed Personal Data Protection Bill is a step forward but requires further refinement to incorporate effective mechanisms for RTBF and redress.
Looking ahead, this case sets a judicial precedent encouraging courts, data controllers, and intermediaries to consider individual rights in digital content management proactively. It calls for legislative clarity to harmonize data privacy, freedom of expression, and transparency in a way that protects individuals from the permanent digital shadow of past allegations.
India’s journey towards comprehensive data protection and RTBF recognition is still evolving. The Patil ruling is a beacon guiding this evolution, underscoring the fundamental constitutional ethos of protecting human dignity in the digital age.
FAQS
Q1: What does the Right to Be Forgotten mean?
A1: The Right to Be Forgotten empowers individuals to seek the erasure or delisting of their personal data from online sources, particularly when the information is obsolete, no longer relevant, or damaging, in order to safeguard their privacy and uphold their reputation.
Q2: Is RTBF recognized in Indian law?
A2: While there is no explicit statutory provision, the Bombay High Court in Prathamesh Nagesh Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2024) has judicially recognized RTBF as an implicit right under the fundamental right to privacy (Article 21).
Q3: How is RTBF balanced with freedom of expression?
A3: Courts balance these competing rights by ensuring content removal is reasonable, proportionate, and justified, protecting privacy without unduly restricting public access to information.
Q4: Can anyone request content removal under RTBF?
A4: Requests are valid if the information is no longer relevant, is inaccurate, or disproportionately harms an individual’s privacy or dignity, especially post-acquittal or rehabilitation.
Q5: What legislative measures exist to protect RTBF in India?
A5: The Information Technology Act, 2000, does not explicitly address RTBF. The Personal Data Protection Bill (pending) aims to introduce formal data rights including RTBF but is yet to be enacted.
Q6: How can an individual seek RTBF protection?
A6: Individuals can approach courts for relief, or request intermediaries to delist or remove content, based on the RTBF principles recognized in recent judgments.
