In News:

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has recognized the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) as an intrinsic part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling marks a significant development in India's evolving privacy jurisprudence by affirming that individuals have the right to seek the removal or masking of personal information from the digital domain when its continued availability no longer serves a legitimate public interest.

What is the Right to be Forgotten?

• The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) enables individuals to request the removal, de-indexing, or restriction of access to personal information available online when such information becomes outdated, irrelevant, excessive, misleading, or disproportionately affects their privacy and dignity.
• The concept gained international recognition through the landmark Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González (2014) judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The court held that search engines can be required to remove links to personal information that is no longer relevant or necessary, thereby establishing the foundation of the RTBF in the digital age.

Constitutional Basis in India

• The Delhi High Court held that the RTBF flows from the broader Right to Privacy, which was recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Since privacy is an integral part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), individuals possess a constitutional right to control the dissemination of their personal information.
• Importantly, the Court observed that even in the absence of a specific statutory framework governing RTBF, constitutional courts possess the authority to recognize and enforce the right to protect individual dignity, autonomy and informational privacy.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

• The judgment directs authorities, search engines, and legal databases to take active steps to protect privacy rights. The Court ordered the masking of personal identifiers and directed search engine operators such as Google to disable name-based search functionality in specified cases.
• A significant feature of the ruling is that these de-indexing directions are intended to operate globally, ensuring that protected information does not remain accessible through alternative search domains.
• The Court also clarified that individuals who have been:Acquitted, Discharged, Granted relief through quashing of proceedings, or Involved in matters that have been settled, have a legitimate claim to ensure that such outcomes are accurately reflected online and that outdated adverse information does not continue to define their digital identity.

Balancing Privacy and Open Justice

A key issue before the Court was balancing the principle of open justice with the individual's right to privacy.

The Court emphasized that open justice promotes transparency and public accountability in judicial proceedings. However, transparency does not require that a citizen's name remain permanently searchable through commercial search engines.

Accordingly:

• Personal identifiers may be masked in publicly accessible judgments.
• Legal reasoning, judicial findings, and conclusions must remain available.
• Unredacted records can be preserved for legitimate legal, academic, and judicial purposes.

Thus, the Court attempted to strike a balance between public access to judicial records and an individual's right to move beyond past legal proceedings.

Limitations and Exceptions

The Court made it clear that the RTBF is not an absolute right. Relief may be denied where larger public interest outweighs privacy concerns.

The Court indicated that protection may not be available in cases involving:

• Convictions for offences against women and children,
• Serious criminal offences,
• Cases involving corruption,
• Breach of public trust by public servants,
• Elected representatives,
• Persons holding fiduciary positions.

In such situations, public interest, accountability, and transparency may take precedence over privacy claims.