Delhi HC creates framework for enforcing ‘right to be forgotten’

PEople not guilty in crook cases, parties to settled disputes and individuals below the belt linked to judicial proceeding may at present find it easier to seek protection of their digital reputation after a landmark Delhi High Court ruling on the “right to be forgotten”.The high court has, for the first time, created a judicial road map for enforcing the “right to be forgotten”, setting out detailed principles for when names can be removed from search results or masked in court records.Also Read | ‘Shadow of crime’ can't replace dignity: Delhi high court recognises ‘right to be forgotten’What is ‘de-indexing’?De-indexing is a directive issued to a private platform that does not result in the erasure of a judicial record, which remains accessible on court websites and legal databases.It merely removes the concerned name as a searchable retrieval key, thereby restricting easy access to the record through name-based searches. Masking, in contrast, is a direction issued to a court or its registry to modify the public version of a judicial record by replacing names and personal identifiers with neutral references such as “ABC” or “XYZ.”Recognising the right to be forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental right to privacy, a bench of Justice Sachin Datta, in its May 29 judgment, which was released on Monday, said that courts, while considering de-indexing relief must assess the information’s character, outcome of the concluded proceedings, the public role of the individual concerned, and the accuracy and continuing relevance of the information.He clarified that de-indexing directions issued following the framework shall accordingly operate globally, across all versions and domains of the relevant search engine, to the extent necessary to give meaningful and effective protection to the individual’s fundamental right to informational privacy under Article 21.Also Read | Centre notifies appointment of five Supreme Court judgesWhat happens in case ending in acquittal, discharge or quashing?The judge said that in cases ending in acquittal, discharge or quashing, continued unrestricted name-based searchability of judicial records undermines the presumption of innocence and creates a disconnect between legal exoneration and digital visibility and in cases where proceedings conclude through settlement or compounding, continued online accessibility may fail the proportionality test if the harm caused to an individual outweighs any legitimate public interest.In purely civil and matrimonial disputes, the bench noted that family life and personal relationships lie within the privacy protections of Article 21, and once such proceedings conclude, their unrestricted digital searchability serves little purpose and has no meaningful connection with open justice, the order held.“A public figure’s status in one domain does not transform the intimate details of their private life, including matrimonial disputes, personal relationships, or conduct entirely unrelated to their public role, into matters of public interest. As recognised in Google Spain S.L. (supra), the lawfulness of processing personal data is not static but must be assessed in light of its continued necessity and relevance,” the court said in its order.It added: “Where information has become inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to any purpose that can be identified, its continued searchability fails the proportionality test"."Where information is demonstrably false, its continued name-based searchability has no claim to protection on the ground of continuing relevance. The principles of open justice and public interest lend no support to the perpetuation of a demonstrably false association between a person and those proceedings,” the court said in its order. Also Read | Delhi HC orders takedown of pornographic, deepfake, unauthorised content using Naga Chaitanya's personaWhen is de-indexing not appropriate?The court also ruled that de-indexing may not be appropriate in cases involving convictions for offences against women or children, or offences involving breach of public trust by public servants, elected representatives or persons in fiduciary positions, but would be justified where proceedings have abated by death without any determination on merits, applying the principle of proportionality.The order was passed in a batch of petitions filed by39 individuals seeking enforcement of the “right to be forgotten” by requesting content removal. All of them shared a common grievance: the continued availability and easy name-based searchability of judicial records containing their identities in the digital public domain caused disproportionate and ongoing harm to their reputation, dignity, and prospects, outweighing any legitimate public interest served by such unrestricted accessibility.The government opposed the petition, submitting that judicial orders/judgements form part of public records and judicial documents within the common law system and, therefore, cannot ordinarily be treated as confidential information merely because they contain personal details relating to individuals.Public records and right to privacyAdditionally, media houses submitted that once information forms part of public records or relates to events occurring in the public domain, the right to privacy cannot ordinarily be invoked to restrain publication or reporting of such information.Google, Indian Kanoon and X Corp opposed the petitions seeking enforcement of the right to be forgotten. Google argued that it functions as a passive intermediary, merely indexing third-party content, and contended that removal orders should be directed against original publishers since source deletion automatically leads to de-indexing.Indian Kanoon submitted that directing the removal or de-linking of public judicial records would amount to private censorship and infringe the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. X Corp similarly argued that the right to be forgotten cannot be invoked to restrict access to information forming part of public records.Ultimately, the high court directed de-indexing in the cases of all petitioners except four and granted them the liberty to seek masking by moving appropriate applications before the courts that had passed the original orders or judgments.Regarding the framework governing masking, the court clarified that such relief would be limited to concealing names and personal identifiers, while the substance of the judgment, including its reasoning, findings, legal conclusions and court details, would remain publicly accessible to preserve its institutional and precedential value.The bench further held that masking directions would operate both retrospectively and prospectively, covering existing digital records as well as future uploads.