In News:

Recently, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark 144-page judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters,recognising the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) as an integral facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Basis

The right to privacy was recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Building on this, the Delhi HC held that RTBF protects individuals from "perpetual exposure" to past events that no longer serve a legitimate public purpose. Significantly, the court held that this right must be actively protected even in the absence of specific legislation — the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 touches on related concepts but does not fully codify RTBF.

Global Precedent

The RTBF was first recognised internationally by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the 2014 Google Spain case, which held that search engines must remove information that is no longer relevant upon request. India's Delhi HC has now established a comparable framework through constitutional interpretation.

Key Directions Issued

• The court directed Google LLC and other search engine operators to de-index relevant content, judgments, orders, and associated reportage from name-based search results within two weeks in cases where relief was granted.
• Indian Kanoon was directed to restrict name-based search functionality while continuing to permit access through case numbers, citations, court details, and dates.
• MeitY was directed to ensure compliance by intermediary platforms and file a compliance affidavit before the court.
• On territorial scope, the court held that de-indexing directions shall operate globally across all versions and domains of the search engine concerned, to protect informational privacy rights under Article 21.

Masking vs. De-indexing

• The court recognised masking as a remedy distinct from de-indexing. Personal identifiers may be masked in publicly accessible digital versions of judicial records, but legal reasoning, findings, and conclusions must remain intact, with unredacted records preserved for legitimate legal purposes.

Balancing Open Justice and Dignity

• The court observed that while judicial transparency remains important, the continued association of an individual's name with judicial records online can disproportionately affect privacy, dignity, and reputation once proceedings have concluded. Open justice ensures transparency — not the perpetual commercial amplification of personal legal struggles.

Exemptions and Limits

The right is not absolute. Relief may be denied in cases involving convictions for offences against women or children, breach of public trust by public servants or elected representatives, and matters of continuing public interest. The court also rejected a plea by a public figure seeking removal of content on past misconduct, holding that RTBF cannot be used as a tool for "selective erasure" of a public figure's conduct.