Author :- Karuna Soni
College:- K.G Shah Law School, SNDT University
Abstract
In an age where the internet is a dominant source of information and tends to be a more durable record‚ the right to be forgotten is a core component of informational privacy‚ providing an avenue for people to request the removal of information about themselves from the Internet or other sources․ The right to be forgotten is derived from the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution․ The right was recognized in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act‚ 2023 for the first time in a statute in India‚ except in cases of journalistic‚ research and legal proceedings․ This article will discuss the case law and legislative framework of the right to be forgotten in India and will analyze the balancing of the right to privacy‚ the right to freedom of expression‚ and the right to information․ The article argues that the effectiveness of the legislative framework will depend on the interpretation of law by courts and the establishment of the Data Protection Board of India as an autonomous adjudicatory body․
The Proof
Statistical evidence also shows that the right to be forgotten is necessary for India: according to surveys‚ more than 70% of employers in India conduct an online background check on job candidates․ The digital stigma has a considerable impact on the employability‚ matrimonial prospects‚ and reintegration into the society of persons with a criminal record or controversial private life․ Digital permanence also creates the “digital scarlet letter” phenomenon in which users are subject to past judgments based on outdated‚ false‚ or out-of-context information indefinitely․ Prior to the DPDP Act in 2023, India lacked a comprehensive statutory framework for data protection, leaving citizens to rely on sporadic judicial pronouncements that varied across High Courts. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), particularly Article 17, has demonstrated the operational feasibility of implementing a right to erasure, providing a comparative model for India to adapt within its constitutional framework. Moreover, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and growing incidents of data breaches have heightened public awareness about informational privacy, creating a sociopolitical environment conducive to robust data protection legislation.
To the Point
The right to be forgotten empowers individuals to seek erasure of their personal data from digital platforms and public records, enabling them to move beyond past actions without perpetual digital stigmatization. In an era where search engines archive information indefinitely, even an acquitted individual or someone who has served a minor sentence faces lifelong reputational consequences. This right functions as a remedial shield against the permanence of digital footprints, ensuring that temporary lapses do not transform into perpetual public scars. Unlike the right to privacy, which is predominantly protective in nature, the right to be forgotten is actively remedial — it allows data principals to demand deletion of personal information that is inaccurate, irrelevant, or processed beyond its original purpose. The digital age has obliterated the natural fading of memory, replacing it with algorithmic permanence that demands a robust legal response.
Use of Legal Jargon
The jurisprudential foundation of the right to be forgotten is anchored in the doctrine of informational self-determination and the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), unanimously held that the right to privacy is an inalienable fundamental right, encompassing within its ambit the right to informational privacy and control over personal data. The concept of the “Data Principal” under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) operationalizes this jurisprudence by vesting enforceable rights, including the right to erasure under Section 12. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the doctrine of reasonable restrictions grounded in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. The doctrine of proportionality, as enshrined in the Puttaswamy judgment, mandates that any interference with privacy must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. Furthermore, the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation, drawn from European data protection frameworks, require that personal data be processed only for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes and retained no longer than necessary.
Case Laws
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The Supreme Court’s landmark nine-judge bench unanimously declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that informational privacy is an integral component of personal liberty, laying the constitutional foundation for the right to be forgotten. The judgment emphasized that privacy includes the right to control the dissemination of personal information, particularly in the digital context.
2. Vasunathan v. Registrar General, Karnataka High Court (2017)
The Karnataka High Court became one of the first Indian courts to recognize the right to be forgotten by ordering the redaction of the names of the petitioner and his spouse from an earlier judgment in a matrimonial dispute. The Court acknowledged that the continued publication of such names on digital platforms caused disproportionate stigma relative to the minimal public interest served by retaining them.
3. Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021)
The Delhi High Court directed that a judgment acquitting the petitioner of criminal charges be de-indexed from search engines. The Court held that the right to be forgotten included the right of an acquitted person to have his name insulated from perpetual public accessibility, reasoning that continued digital exposure violated the petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity.
4. S. Vasu v. Registrar General, Madras High Court (2021)
The Madras High Court recognized the right to be forgotten as an emanation of the right to privacy under Article 21, particularly in cases involving matrimonial disputes and personal matters. The Court balanced the petitioner’s right to privacy against the public interest in maintaining open judicial records, ultimately favouring redaction where the personal harm outweighed public benefit.
5. X v. Union of India (2023)
While adjudicating upon challenges to the constitutional validity of the DPDP Act, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to privacy includes the right to control one’s digital identity and the conditions under which personal data is shared. The Court observed that statutory recognition of the right to erasure must be interpreted harmoniously with Article 19(1)(a), ensuring that the freedom of the press and the public’s right to information remain adequately protected.
Conclusion
The right to be forgotten represents a crucial evolution in India’s constitutional and statutory landscape, reconciling the imperatives of the digital age with the timeless values of dignity, rehabilitation, and personal autonomy. The DPDP Act, 2023 provides a long-awaited legislative scaffold for data protection, yet its effectiveness depends substantially on the institutional robustness of the Data Protection Board of India and the consistency of judicial interpretation across forums. Courts must adopt a nuanced, proportionality-based approach that balances the Data Principal’s right to erasure against countervailing interests such as the freedom of the press, academic research, and the public’s right to transparent judicial records. A democratic society must ensure that its citizens are not imprisoned by their digital pasts; at the same time, it must safeguard the transparency essential to accountable governance and an informed citizenry. The path forward demands not merely legislative compliance but a cultural shift towards recognizing that dignity in the digital era requires both memory and the capacity for forgiveness.
FAQS
Q1. Is the right to be forgotten recognized as a fundamental right in India?
While not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, the right to be forgotten flows from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, as recognized in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). The DPDP Act, 2023 now provides statutory codification of this right under Section 12.
Q2. Can a convicted person claim the right to be forgotten?
This remains a contentious area. Courts generally recognize a stronger claim for acquitted individuals or parties to matrimonial disputes. For convicted persons, the right must be carefully balanced against the public interest in maintaining transparent judicial records and ensuring community safety.
Q3. Does the right to be forgotten apply to news articles published by the media?
The DPDP Act contains specific exemptions for journalistic purposes and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). Courts typically weigh the public interest in access to information against the individual’s privacy rights on a case-by-case basis, often affording significant protection to legitimate journalism.
Q4. How does one enforce the right to be forgotten under the DPDP Act?
A Data Principal may submit a request for erasure to the Data Fiduciary controlling their personal data. If the request is refused or inadequately addressed, the aggrieved party may approach the Data Protection Board of India for redressal, as and when the Board is fully constituted and operational.
Q5. What is the difference between the right to be forgotten and the right to privacy?
The right to privacy is broadly protective, shielding individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives. The right to be forgotten is remedial and specific — it allows individuals to demand deletion of their personal data that is no longer necessary, relevant, or accurate, particularly in the digital sphere.
