Delhi High Court Upholds Right to Be Forgotten in Digital Records

PTI, June 2, 2026, New Delhi: Recognising an individual’s “right to be forgotten”, the Delhi High Court has ruled that search engines such as Google cannot be perpetually permitted to display judicial records in name-based searches for cases that are private in nature or have ended in acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement.

Granting relief to a group of petitioners, the court directed authorities, search engine operators and legal database platforms to de-index and disable their name-based search functionality in respect of judgments, orders and news articles cited by the petitioners.

The court, however, held that de-indexing would not be appropriate in certain cases involving convictions for offences against women or children, offences involving breach of public trust, or cases concerning public servants and elected representatives.

De-indexing refers to the removal of a specific web page or website from a search engine’s database.

Justice Sachin Datta observed that while transparency is integral to judicial independence and accountability, the continued association of an individual’s name with a judicial record online can cause disproportionate harm to informational privacy, dignity and reputation, without serving any legitimate public interest.

The judge stated that the “right to be forgotten”, a broader manifestation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, protects individuals from perpetual exposure to irrelevant past events. He added that no legitimate aim is served by unlimited and unrestricted name-based searchability of judicial records related to proceedings that have already been resolved.

The court delivered the verdict on a batch of more than 30 petitions filed by individuals seeking the de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results and the masking of their personal identifiers in publicly accessible digital records.

In its 144-page judgment, the court further ruled that the petitioners would be at liberty to seek masking of their identity in the original judgment or order before the concerned court.

“The right to be forgotten, understood as subsuming the right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility, where such information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose, flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21,” the court said in its judgment delivered on May 29.

The court, however, declined relief to P.P. Madhva, who sought de-indexing after a settlement in a sexual offence case in which he was involved.

The court clarified that there remains a continuing public interest in proceedings involving serious allegations against a public figure.

It also refused relief to reality show celebrity Ashutosh Kaushik, who sought the removal of posts, videos and articles depicting incidents of drunken behaviour. The court observed that the right to be forgotten is not a mechanism for the selective erasure of a public figure’s past conduct.