After Reading This Article You Can Solve This UPSC Mains Model Question:
The Right to be Forgotten reflects the evolving relationship between privacy, technology and constitutional freedoms. Discuss the significance of the recent Delhi High Court judgment and examine the challenges in implementing this right in India. 15 Marks (GS 2, Polity)
Introduction
The Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment has strengthened India’s jurisprudence on the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) by recognising it as an extension of Article 21 (Right to Privacy and Dignity). The ruling seeks to balance informational privacy with freedom of speech, open justice, and the public’s right to know in the digital era.
What is the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)?
The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is the right of an individual to seek removal, erasure, or de-indexing of personal information from the digital public domain when its continued availability causes disproportionate harm and no longer serves a legitimate public interest.
Evolution of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)
1. Global Recognition (2014)
- Google Spain SL v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González (2014): The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recognised the Right to be Forgotten, allowing individuals to request the removal of outdated or irrelevant personal information from search engine results.
- GDPR, 2018: The right was subsequently codified under Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the “Right to Erasure.”
2. Constitutional Recognition in India (2017)
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court declared the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21, laying the constitutional foundation for the RTBF through the concept of informational privacy.
3. Divergent Judicial Approaches (2017–2025)
- Various High Courts adopted inconsistent approaches, with some allowing anonymisation or masking of personal information, while others prioritised the principles of open justice and freedom of expression.
4. Structured Jurisprudence by the Delhi High Court (2026)
- Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026): The Delhi High Court recognised the RTBF as part of Article 21, introduced the proportionality test, and favoured masking or de-indexing names over deleting judicial records.
Key Highlights of the Delhi High Court Judgment (2026)
1. RTBF as a Constitutional Right
The Court held that the Right to be Forgotten flows from Article 21, protecting an individual’s informational privacy and dignity.
2. Adoption of the Proportionality Test
The Court directed that every RTBF claim must balance privacy, public interest, legitimate purpose, and the least restrictive means before granting relief.
3. Preference for Masking over Deletion
Instead of deleting judicial records, the Court preferred masking or de-indexing parties’ names while preserving the judgment for public access.
4. Time-bound Compliance
Legal databases and online platforms must implement court directions within two weeks to ensure timely protection of privacy rights.
5. Balancing Privacy with Open Justice
The Court preserved the principle of open justice by allowing judgments to remain searchable through case numbers and keywords, while restricting only name-based searches.
Significance of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)
1. Protects the Right to Privacy
RTBF safeguards informational privacy under Article 21 by enabling individuals to control the continued accessibility of their personal data.
2. Upholds Human Dignity
It protects individuals from permanent digital stigma, allowing them to move beyond past incidents and preserve their dignity.
3. Facilitates Social Rehabilitation
RTBF enables acquitted persons, victims, or those who have resolved past disputes to reintegrate into society without lifelong reputational harm.
4. Promotes Responsible Digital Governance
It encourages the ethical retention and processing of personal data, ensuring that outdated or irrelevant information is not stored indefinitely.
5. Balances Privacy with Constitutional Values
RTBF harmonises the right to privacy with freedom of expression, open justice, and the public’s right to know in the digital age.
Major Challenges in Implementing the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)
1. Balancing Privacy with Open Justice
Protecting informational privacy must be balanced with the principles of judicial transparency, freedom of expression, and the public’s right to know.
2. Technological Limitations
De-indexing cannot completely erase digital footprints, as information may persist through archives, mirror websites, and social media platforms.
3. Weak Institutional Framework
The absence of a fully functional Data Protection Board limits the effective implementation and enforcement of RTBF.
4. Limitations of the DPDP Act, 2023
The Act provides only a limited consent-based right to erasure and does not adequately address judicial records, public archives, or the broader RTBF framework.
5. Procedural and Regulatory Uncertainty
The lack of a clear statutory mechanism for processing erasure or de-indexing requests leads to inconsistent judicial and administrative outcomes.
6. Platform Compliance and Enforcement
Delayed or inconsistent compliance by search engines and digital platforms reduces the practical effectiveness of court-ordered de-indexing.
Way Forward
1. Establish a Multi-Tier Redressal Mechanism
Create a tiered framework where digital platforms handle routine de-indexing requests, the Data Protection Board decides appeals, and the Judiciary adjudicates constitutional and judicial record-related cases, ensuring efficiency, accountability, and due process.
2. Develop a Uniform Legal Framework
The Supreme Court should lay down comprehensive guidelines to ensure consistent and uniform implementation of the Right to be Forgotten across India.
3. Operationalise the DPDP Act, 2023
Notify the pending rules and strengthen the Data Protection Board to provide an effective statutory mechanism for enforcing RTBF.
4. Standardise De-indexing and Strengthen Platform Accountability
Prescribe transparent de-indexing procedures and ensure timely compliance by search engines and digital platforms with judicial directions.
5. Balance Privacy with Other Constitutional Rights
Implement RTBF in a manner that protects privacy and dignity without undermining freedom of expression, freedom of the press, public interest, and the principle of open justice.
6. Promote Privacy-by-Design
Encourage digital platforms to integrate privacy safeguards, data minimisation, and user-centric data protection measures into their systems by design.
Conclusion
The Right to be Forgotten strengthens informational privacy and human dignity while preserving open justice and free speech. A clear legal framework and effective institutional mechanisms are essential for its meaningful implementation.