Author: Sanskruti M. Kunjir, Balaji Law College affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
To the Point
In today’s hyper-digital world, where every click and post leaves a lasting footprint, the idea that one can control or erase personal data from the internet seems almost radical — yet increasingly necessary. The “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) is emerging as a critical legal principle in India in 2025. It proposes that individuals should have the right to request the deletion or de-indexing of their personal data from digital platforms. But this right isn’t straightforward. It bumps up against another cornerstone of our democracy — the freedom of speech and expression.
This article unpacks the nuanced legal landscape of RTBF in India as of 2025, exploring how courts, online platforms, and lawmakers are grappling with the challenge of balancing privacy rights with the need to maintain open access to information in the digital age.
Legal Analysis
The rapid proliferation of digital platforms and the sheer volume of personal information shared online has intensified calls for recognizing and enforcing the Right to Be Forgotten. At its core, RTBF empowers individuals to request the removal of personal data that is outdated, irrelevant, or potentially harmful. In India, this principle draws strength from the fundamental right to privacy, recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution following the seminal K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) ruling. That decision cemented privacy as intrinsic to life and personal liberty.
However, the RTBF doesn’t operate in isolation. It must be balanced with Article 19(1)(a), which safeguards the freedom of speech and expression — a right that includes the freedom to access and disseminate information. Hence, any RTBF claim triggers a conflict between two equally fundamental rights.
Complicating matters further is the concept of “manifestly unlawful information” — content that is objectively false, defamatory, or in breach of data protection norms. Courts and platforms often refer to this category when evaluating whether content can justifiably be removed without infringing on freedom of expression.
Online intermediaries — such as search engines, news archives, and social media platforms — are pivotal actors in this equation. Their legal obligations regarding content takedown requests are still a grey area, particularly in the absence of robust data protection legislation. Furthermore, the principle of proportionality — a doctrine that ensures that restrictions on rights are justified, necessary, and the least intrusive means — plays a central role in guiding judicial decisions around RTBF.
Finally, there’s the public interest exception, which asserts that not all personal data can or should be forgotten — particularly when it involves information that contributes to journalistic records, historical archives, or public accountability.
The Proof
RTBF is no longer a theoretical or academic concern. Real-world legal disputes and public demand in India have made it a matter of daily digital existence.
Evidence of the growing prominence of this right is visible in the increasing number of individuals petitioning courts to delist sensitive or outdated personal data from search engine results. These cases often include individuals attempting to escape their digital pasts — such as expunged criminal records, sensitive family matters, or past controversies that no longer hold public relevance.
Conversely, digital rights activists and journalists argue that such removals threaten transparency and the public’s right to access relevant information. For instance, deleting news reports about public figures or legal proceedings can have chilling effects on free speech and journalistic independence.
Moreover, legal debates are increasingly focusing on whether platforms like Google or Facebook can be held accountable for non-compliance. There is no clear regulatory standard, which leaves intermediaries in a precarious position. Some platforms have created mechanisms to evaluate RTBF claims, but their criteria remain opaque and inconsistent.
In courts, judges frequently rely on the proportionality principle to make these decisions. They weigh the individual’s privacy interests against public interest and the freedom of expression. This case-by-case approach, though pragmatic, also creates a patchwork of precedents, making the legal framework somewhat unpredictable.
Adding another layer of complexity is the international nature of the internet. Information removed from Indian platforms may still be accessible through foreign servers. This global dimension highlights the urgent need for cross-border legal cooperation and harmonization of data privacy standards.
Abstract
This article delves into the evolving legal landscape of the Right to Be Forgotten in India in 2025. With digital lives becoming increasingly permanent and traceable, individuals are seeking the right to remove outdated or sensitive personal information from online platforms. Grounded in the right to privacy under Article 21, RTBF faces significant pushback from defenders of free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The article explores legal criteria for RTBF implementation, the role of digital intermediaries, the importance of proportionality, and the limits posed by public interest. In the absence of dedicated legislation, India’s courts are shaping RTBF jurisprudence through a growing body of case law and constitutional interpretation, creating a delicate balance between digital privacy and democratic transparency.
Case Laws
Several landmark and ongoing legal decisions are shaping India’s interpretation of the Right to Be Forgotten:
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
This landmark judgment laid the foundation for RTBF by declaring privacy a fundamental right. The Court emphasized informational autonomy, including the right to control the dissemination of personal data. It didn’t directly address RTBF but created the constitutional bedrock for future arguments.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
This case primarily dealt with online censorship but introduced the doctrine of proportionality into the digital rights space. It highlighted the need to evaluate any restriction on free speech against necessity and reasonableness, a principle that underpins RTBF assessments today.
3. Ongoing High Court Cases
Several High Courts across India — notably Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala — have heard RTBF-related pleas. These include petitions to delist names from judgments available online, remove search engine links to sensitive legal cases, or delete personal photographs and data. The decisions vary, reflecting differing judicial opinions on privacy vs. public interest.
4. Anticipated Influence of Data Protection Law
If the long-awaited Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) is fully operational by 2025, it will play a major role in formalizing RTBF. Provisions around the right to erasure, consent withdrawal, and data minimization are expected to be invoked in legal claims.
5. Reference to International Jurisprudence
Indian courts often look toward the EU’s GDPR and cases such as Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014), where the European Court of Justice ruled that individuals can request search engines to delist certain information. Indian courts are adapting these ideas cautiously, ensuring alignment with domestic constitutional values.
Conclusion
The Right to Be Forgotten in India’s digital realm sits at the intersection of two powerful rights — privacy and free speech. In a world where data is currency and reputation is shaped online, the ability to reclaim one’s digital identity is not merely a convenience — it’s a necessity.
But RTBF is not a blanket right. Its application requires careful judicial scrutiny. Courts must assess whether the data in question is harmful, outdated, or no longer in the public interest, while still preserving access to vital information that holds public value. The role of intermediaries is evolving, and their responsibilities must be clarified through legal reforms.
Until India enacts comprehensive data protection legislation with clear RTBF provisions, the judiciary will remain the primary architect of this right. And with increasing litigation, public awareness, and global precedents influencing domestic law, RTBF is bound to become a cornerstone of India’s digital rights framework.
The ultimate goal is not to rewrite history but to provide individuals the chance to move forward without being endlessly shadowed by their past online — a goal that reflects both human dignity and the spirit of our Constitution.
FAQS
1. What is the “right to be forgotten” in the digital context?
The Right to Be Forgotten allows individuals to request the removal of personal data from search engines and other online platforms when the information is outdated, irrelevant, or potentially damaging.
2. Is there a specific law for RTBF in India as of 2025?
No. As of 2025, India lacks a standalone law on RTBF. However, courts have begun recognizing it through the broader right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. How is RTBF connected to the right to privacy?
RTBF is seen as an extension of the right to privacy. It allows individuals control over how their personal data appears and persists online, reinforcing the idea of informational self-determination.
4. Does RTBF conflict with freedom of speech and expression?
Yes, often. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, including the right to access information. RTBF requests must therefore be balanced against this right, particularly in cases involving public interest or journalistic content.
5. What factors do courts consider when deciding RTBF claims?
Courts typically evaluate:
The nature of the information (sensitive or trivial)
Its relevance over time
The individual’s role (public figure or private citizen)
The potential harm caused by continued publication
Public interest and legal compliance.
6. What is the responsibility of online platforms in RTBF cases?
Platforms like Google or Meta are expected to assess RTBF claims on merit. While not legally mandated yet, courts may hold them accountable for facilitating or denying legitimate requests.
7. Can RTBF be denied based on public interest?
Yes. If the information contributes to the public discourse, involves public figures, or is part of the historical/journalistic record, RTBF may be overridden by the public interest exception.
8. How does India’s data protection law (if enacted) interact with RTBF?
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, if implemented, may offer statutory support for RTBF through clauses allowing data deletion, consent withdrawal, and purpose limitation.
9. Can Indians request removal of content hosted abroad?
In theory, yes. In practice, it depends on the laws of the host country. Cross-border enforcement is difficult unless there are international agreements or compliance by global platforms.
10. What does the future hold for RTBF in India?
India is likely to see more judicial recognition, followed by legislative codification of RTBF. The balance between privacy and free expression will continue to evolve through landmark rulings and public debates.
References
Constitution of India
Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA)
Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF)
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014)
