Judicial recognition of the right to be forgotten in India

2 entries over 29 days, from 9 July 2026 to 6 August 2026.

01
9 July

Delhi HC ruling on right to be forgotten

The 'right to be forgotten' allows for the erasure or de-indexing of information from the public digital environment when its accessibility is harmful and lacks public interest.
Origin: 2014 European Court of Justice ruling (Mario Costeja González v. Google) regarding outdated debt information.
Legal Basis in India: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, including informational privacy.
Delhi High Court Ruling (May 2026, Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India): The court held that the right to be forgotten is derived from Article 21 (dignity and informational privacy).
Proportionality Test: Retention must have a legitimate purpose; privacy harm must be balanced against public interest; least intrusive means (masking names) should be preferred over total deletion.
Implementation: Legal databases must comply within two weeks; only party names should be redacted, not case facts.
Conflict: The right often clashes with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech/press) and the principle of 'open justice'.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023: Section 12 provides a limited statutory right to erasure, but lacks explicit provisions for judicial records and public archives.
Challenges: Enforcement is difficult due to search engine algorithms, mirror sites, and social media sharing; current mechanisms lack a clear institutional framework for adjudicating requests.

02
6 August

The Karnataka High Court has formally recognised the 'right to be forgotten' in the digital age.
The court directed search engines, judicial record-keepers, and police to mask the name of an acquitted individual from online records.
The ruling emphasizes that digital search results significantly shape public perception and can inflict civil consequences even after a criminal acquittal.
The court defined an acquittal as a 'solemn judicial declaration' of innocence, noting that digital visibility of obsolete accusations undermines this vindication.
The case involved an Iranian national acquitted in 2019 of charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, due to police lapses and lack of evidence.
The directive applies to the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru City Civil Court, State police, Google, and the Indian Kanoon portal.

Newest first. A story that ran for 29 days is exactly the kind the mains paper asks about as one question.

Discuss the concept of the 'right to be forgotten' in the context of the digital age and its significance in protecting the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 150 words · 6 August
How does the permanent digital footprint of criminal proceedings, even after acquittal, impact an individual's right to live with dignity? Analyze the role of the judiciary in balancing the public's right to information with an individual's right to privacy in the digital era. 250 words · 6 August
Discuss the evolution of the 'right to be forgotten' in Indian jurisprudence and its reconciliation with the principle of 'open justice' as highlighted by the Delhi High Court. 150 words · 9 July
The right to informational privacy must be balanced against the public's right to know and the freedom of the press. In light of recent judicial developments, evaluate the challenges in implementing the 'right to be forgotten' within the existing legal framework of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. 250 words · 9 July

250words.in · https://250words.in/stories/judicial-recognition-of-the-right-to-be-forgotten-in