Context
- Recently, the Right to be Forgotten came into the spotlight after a major High Court judgment ruled that a person’s past legal issues should not permanently ruin their life online. The court decided that individuals who have been proven innocent, or those involved in settled private family disputes, have a right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- To protect their reputation and future opportunities, internet search engines and legal websites were ordered to remove their names from public search results so that a casual online search does not follow them like a permanent shadow.
1. Concept and Mechanism
- Definition: The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) enables individuals to seek the restriction, masking, or removal of personal information from public digital availability when it becomes irrelevant or no longer serves a legitimate public purpose.
- De-indexing vs. Erasure: De-indexing does not mean erasing the case record from official archives. It modifies online search engines so that an individual’s name ceases to act as a primary keyword to fetch the record, protecting personal privacy while upholding institutional records.
- Origin: Formally recognized globally by the European Court of Justice in Google Spain (2014) and codified under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
2. Legal Status in India
- Constitutional Basis: It is an un-enumerated right implicitly included under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) via the Supreme Court’s landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) privacy judgment.
- Statutory Framework: While the judiciary notes a lack of an explicit, comprehensive statutory code dedicated solely to de-indexing court records, the underlying principle of personal data erasure is supported by provisions within the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
- Intermediary Duty: Under the IT Rules, 2021, digital intermediaries must restrict or de-index specific content when ordered by a court of law.
3. Key Judicial Exceptions (Not an Absolute Right)
The RTBF is subject to reasonable restrictions and is denied by courts in the following scenarios:
- Convictions for heinous crimes or offences against women and children.
- Financial fraud, corruption, or systemic breaches of public trust by public officials.
- Matters where a continuous public interest exists, or where deletion would distort historical records.
- Geographical Scope: Courts hold that to be effective against digital borderlessness, verified de-indexing mandates must apply globally across all regional domain extensions of a search engine.
Q. Consider the following statements regarding the Right to be Forgotten in India:
Statement I: The Right to be Forgotten is an absolute fundamental right explicitly codified under Part III of the Constitution of India.
Statement II: De-indexing a judicial record under the Right to be Forgotten permanently erases the judgment from public legal databases and court archives.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
(a) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I
(b) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I
(c) Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect
(d) Both Statement I and Statement II are incorrect
Solution & Answer
Correct Answer: (d)
• STATEMENT I IS INCORRECT: The Right to be Forgotten is not an absolute right, nor is it explicitly written into Part III. It is an un-enumerated right derived through the judicial interpretation of Article 21 (K.S. Puttaswamy case) and is limited by exceptions like open justice and public interest.
• STATEMENT II IS INCORRECT: De-indexing does not mean permanent deletion or erasure of a judgment from official repositories. It simply stops the individual's name from pulling up the case on public search engines, while keeping the case records fully intact via direct legal citations or case numbers.
