Delhi High Court Establishes Landmark Framework for the Right to be Forgotten
Context
The Delhi High Court has evolved a significant legal framework on the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) through its landmark judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, reaffirming that informational privacy and human dignity form an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)
About the Right to be Forgotten
Meaning
The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) enables individuals to seek the removal, erasure, anonymisation, or de-indexing of their personal information from search engines, websites, and digital platforms when such information has become outdated, irrelevant, or causes disproportionate harm to their privacy and reputation without serving any continuing public interest.
Evolution of the Right to be Forgotten
Global Recognition
The concept gained worldwide recognition in 2014, when the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in favour of Mario Costeja González, directing Google to remove obsolete search results relating to his past financial liabilities.
Incorporation under GDPR
Following the landmark European ruling, the European Union formally recognised the Right to Erasure under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), allowing individuals to request deletion of personal data under specified circumstances.
Constitutional Foundation in India
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21, recognising informational privacy and an individual’s control over personal data.
Position Before the 2026 Delhi High Court Judgment
Before the Delhi High Court’s decision, India did not have a comprehensive legal framework governing RTBF. Different High Courts adopted varying approaches, with some permitting anonymisation of names in judgments while others prioritised the principle of open justice and public access to judicial records.
Why the Right to be Forgotten is Important in India
Removing the Burden of Digital Stigma
Individuals who have been acquitted or discharged often continue to suffer social and professional consequences because online searches prominently display old allegations rather than final judicial outcomes.
Protecting Innocent and Wrongfully Accused Persons
People falsely implicated in criminal cases may experience long-lasting reputational damage even after being completely exonerated by courts.
Safeguarding Private Family Matters
Old matrimonial disputes, divorce proceedings, or family conflicts that no longer have public relevance should not remain permanently searchable if they unnecessarily affect an individual’s personal life.
Preventing Harm to Third Parties
Persons who are merely mentioned in legal proceedings without any wrongdoing may also suffer reputational loss due to their names appearing in digital records.
Major Judicial Decisions
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The Supreme Court recognised the Right to Privacy as an inseparable component of Article 21, including informational privacy and an individual’s right to control personal information.
Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026)
The Delhi High Court held that the Right to be Forgotten naturally flows from the constitutional guarantees of privacy and dignity. It ruled that the right can also be enforced against private digital intermediaries where justified.
Structured Proportionality Test
The Court introduced a balancing framework requiring authorities to examine:
- Whether retaining the information serves a legitimate public purpose.
- Whether continued publication causes disproportionate harm to an individual’s privacy and dignity.
- Whether less restrictive measures such as anonymisation or name masking can adequately balance privacy with open justice.
Way Forward
Operationalise the DPDP Act
The Government should notify the pending rules under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and fully operationalise the Data Protection Board of India for efficient disposal of RTBF requests.
Establish a Multi-Tier Redressal Mechanism
Erasure or de-indexing requests should first be handled by digital platforms, followed by review by the Data Protection Board where disputes arise, with courts acting as the final appellate authority.
Ensure Accuracy Rather than Mere Concealment
Legal databases and online repositories should regularly update judicial records to reflect acquittals, discharges, settlements, or other subsequent developments instead of merely suppressing information.
Strengthen Cross-Platform Compliance
Search engines, social media platforms, archives, and online databases should adopt coordinated technical mechanisms to ensure that removed information does not reappear through mirror websites or cached copies.
Need for Supreme Court Clarification
Although the Delhi High Court has laid down an important framework, a definitive judgment from the Supreme Court is necessary to establish a uniform national standard balancing privacy, freedom of expression, and the principle of open justice.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s recognition of the Right to be Forgotten marks a major step towards strengthening digital privacy and protecting personal dignity in India. By introducing a balanced framework that safeguards both informational privacy and the principles of transparency and open justice, the judgment lays the foundation for a modern privacy regime. However, the effectiveness of this right will ultimately depend on robust implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, technological compliance by digital platforms, and authoritative guidance from the Supreme Court.
Source : The Hindu