Right to be Forgotten

Introduction

The rapid expansion of the digital ecosystem has transformed the way information is created, stored and accessed. While the internet has enhanced transparency and access to information, it has also created a permanent digital footprint for individuals, often preserving outdated, inaccurate or irrelevant information indefinitely. In this context, the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) has emerged as an important dimension of the broader right to privacy, enabling individuals to seek the removal or restricted accessibility of personal information that no longer serves a legitimate public purpose.

In India, the Right to be Forgotten is still evolving through judicial interpretation. The recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026) has provided a significant framework for balancing an individual's right to privacy with the principles of open justice and freedom of information.

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court, in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026), laid down a comprehensive framework governing the Right to be Forgotten in India. The Court held that the right flows from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 and introduced a structured proportionality test for deciding requests relating to removal or masking of personal information available online.

What is the Right to be Forgotten?

The Right to be Forgotten refers to an individual's right to seek the removal, erasure, de-indexing or restricted accessibility of personal information from digital platforms, search engines or publicly accessible databases when the continued availability of such information causes disproportionate harm and no longer serves any legitimate public interest.

The objective is not to erase history or rewrite judicial records but to protect an individual's dignity, reputation and informational privacy in the digital age. In many cases, courts have preferred name masking or de-indexing from search engines rather than complete deletion of judicial records, thereby maintaining the balance between transparency and privacy.

The right is particularly relevant in cases involving acquitted persons, victims of crimes, matrimonial disputes, juveniles and individuals who continue to suffer reputational harm due to obsolete digital records.

Evolution of the Right to be Forgotten

The concept of the Right to be Forgotten first gained international recognition in 2014 through the landmark judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Mario Costeja González v. Google Spain. The Court directed Google to remove links relating to an old newspaper notice concerning the individual's settled debts, holding that outdated personal information should not remain perpetually searchable without sufficient public interest.

Following this judgment, the European Union formally incorporated the Right to Erasure under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), making it one of the most significant digital privacy rights globally.

In India, the constitutional foundation of the Right to be Forgotten was laid by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment recognised informational privacy and acknowledged that individuals should exercise reasonable control over their personal data.

However, despite this constitutional recognition, India lacked a clear statutory mechanism governing the Right to be Forgotten. Different High Courts adopted varying approaches, creating legal uncertainty. Some courts permitted anonymisation or masking of names, while others refused such requests in the interest of judicial transparency.

The recent Delhi High Court judgment has sought to bridge this gap by providing a structured framework for adjudicating such claims.

Constitutional and Legal Basis

Although the Constitution does not expressly mention the Right to be Forgotten, it is derived primarily from the broader guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to privacy, dignity and informational autonomy.

The right must, however, be balanced against other constitutional values such as:

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression, including the public's right to receive information.
• Open Court Principle: Judicial proceedings are generally conducted publicly to ensure transparency and accountability.
• Freedom of the Press: Media reporting of judicial proceedings constitutes an important component of democratic governance.

Consequently, courts apply a balancing approach instead of treating the Right to be Forgotten as an absolute right.

Important Judicial Pronouncements

The evolution of the Right to be Forgotten in India has largely been driven by judicial decisions.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right and observed that informational privacy includes an individual's ability to control personal information.

In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026), the Delhi High Court held that the Right to be Forgotten naturally flows from Article 21. The Court clarified that the right may also operate against private entities such as search engines and commercial digital platforms.

Most importantly, the Court introduced a Structured Proportionality Test, under which courts must examine whether continued public availability of information serves a legitimate public purpose and whether the resulting invasion of privacy is proportionate.

Instead of directing complete deletion of judicial records, the Court favoured mechanisms such as name masking, de-indexing and contextual updating, thereby preserving judicial transparency while protecting individual dignity.

Need for the Right to be Forgotten in India

The increasing digitisation of court records, media reports and online databases has made personal information permanently searchable, even after legal disputes have ended. This creates long-term reputational and psychological consequences.

Individuals who have been acquitted often continue to suffer social stigma because internet searches prominently display earlier accusations while subsequent acquittals receive little visibility. Similarly, victims of crimes and persons falsely implicated in criminal cases frequently face lifelong reputational damage despite favourable judicial outcomes.

The right is also important in sensitive matrimonial disputes where continued public availability of private family matters serves little public interest but causes lasting emotional and social harm.

Further, many individuals experience reputational injury merely because they are incidentally mentioned in litigation despite having no substantive involvement. In such cases, unrestricted digital accessibility becomes disproportionate to any legitimate public purpose.

Challenges in Implementing the Right

Despite growing judicial recognition, effective implementation of the Right to be Forgotten presents several practical and legal challenges.

One of the biggest concerns is balancing individual privacy with the constitutional principle of open justice. Judicial records constitute public documents, and excessive removal of information may undermine transparency and accountability.

Technical challenges also remain significant. Even if information is removed from one search engine, archived websites, social media platforms and mirror databases may continue to circulate the same content.

The absence of dedicated institutional mechanisms under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) further complicates enforcement. At present, individuals often have to approach courts directly, making the process lengthy and expensive.

There are also concerns that the right could be misused by influential individuals to suppress information of genuine public interest under the guise of privacy.

Way Forward

The effective implementation of the Right to be Forgotten requires a comprehensive institutional and legal framework.

The Government should operationalise the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 by notifying the remaining rules and establishing a fully functional Data Protection Board, which can adjudicate erasure requests efficiently without burdening constitutional courts.

A tiered dispute-resolution mechanism should be developed whereby requests are first examined by digital platforms, followed by the Data Protection Board and finally judicial review wherever necessary.

Instead of relying solely on deletion of information, legal databases should regularly update records to prominently display acquittals, discharge orders and subsequent judicial developments so that outdated allegations do not distort public perception.

Technology companies must also establish coordinated mechanisms for cross-platform de-indexing to prevent the reappearance of removed information through archived websites or duplicate databases.

Finally, a comprehensive ruling by the Supreme Court would help establish a uniform nationwide standard that balances privacy, transparency, freedom of expression and open justice.

Conclusion

The Right to be Forgotten represents an important evolution in India's constitutional commitment to privacy, dignity and informational autonomy in the digital age. The Delhi High Court's decision in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026) marks a significant step towards recognising that individuals should not remain permanently burdened by obsolete or irrelevant digital records. By preferring proportionate remedies such as name masking and de-indexing instead of complete erasure, the judiciary has attempted to balance the competing values of privacy and transparency. Going forward, the effective implementation of the DPDP Act, stronger institutional mechanisms and clear Supreme Court guidance will be essential for transforming the Right to be Forgotten from a developing judicial principle into a meaningful digital right for every citizen.