What is the right to be forgotten? | Explained
Story so far:
The Delhi High Court in its recent decision laid down the principles governing the right to be forgotten. The court has developed new case law to protect the privacy of those who continue to be persecuted for their digital footprints on social media and elsewhere, even after the matters have been resolved in their favor.
What is the “right to be forgotten”?
The “right to be forgotten” is the right to have information deleted or de-indexed from the public digital environment if its further availability is harmful and does not serve any public interest.
The concept came to the fore in 2014, when Spanish citizen Mario Costeja González complained to the European Court of Justice that Google continued to display old newspaper notices about the auction of his foreclosed home, even after the debt had been settled. The court ruled in his favor and laid the foundations for the right to erasure, which was later incorporated into Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
How did the idea of the right to be forgotten evolve in Indian law?
The Supreme Court judgment in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, including the right to privacy of information. In subsequent years, however, the High Courts adopted different approaches.
While some have allowed anonymity in limited cases, such as the Delhi High Court ordering masking of names in certain matrimonial and criminal cases, others have rejected similar requests on grounds of open justice.
The real problem was the lack of a coherent framework to balance these conflicting interests, which the Delhi High Court judgment of May 2026 sought to address.
How did the Delhi High Court decide?
On May 29, the Delhi High Court ruled in a series of more than 30 consolidated petitions, headed by Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India. The main issue was whether the privacy of information could justify de-indexing or masking court records in a system committed to open justice. The Court held that the right to be forgotten derives from the guarantee of dignity and privacy of information under Article 21. The structured test of proportionality is that retention must have a legitimate purpose, that harm to privacy must be balanced by the public interest, and that the least intrusive means should be preferred, usually masking names rather than erasing the entire judgment. The court also prescribed a two-week deadline for legal databases to comply, explaining that only the names of the parties should be redacted, not the facts of the case.
How does the right to be forgotten relate to constitutional values?
This is not a separate right. It is often in conflict with the freedom of speech and the press according to Article 19 paragraph 1 letter a), the principle of open justice and the public’s right to information. The right to privacy must be sacrificed when the public interest is high, especially in serious criminal cases, but a digital presence should not destroy a person’s life long after the trial is over. Judgments are still publicly accessible by case number or keyword search; only search by name is limited.
What are the practical challenges?
The most difficult aspect is enforceability. An acquittal may still appear high in name-based searches even if a court has ordered the search results to be removed. Search engines are designed so that the original charge, or “shadow of the crime,” is often the first thing a user sees. Deindexing can be beneficial at the search level, but it will not prevent mirroring, archival copies, or social sharing. Without effective technical compliance and coordination between platforms, the law may remain largely symbolic.
What is the relationship between the right to be forgotten and the DPDP Act?
As of now, the Data Protection Act 2023 offers a limited statutory right to erasure in Section 12. It is based primarily on consent and does not specifically address court records and public archives, where the right to be forgotten is most needed. The law is insufficient because the rules have not been notified and the Data Protection Board has not been fully effective.
Who should decide on requests for deletion or de-indexing?
The challenge lies in balancing efficiency and accountability. Requiring each application to be decided by a court would create significant bottlenecks, while leaving such decisions entirely up to tech companies raises concerns about due process and transparency. A more sensible approach would be a multi-tiered system where cases could be heard by the platforms, contested cases by the Data Protection Board and judicial cases by the courts.
The Delhi High Court has created an important framework, but until the Supreme Court rules on the matter, sets up a data protection board and the platforms follow it, the ruling will be mostly declaratory. The conflict over free speech and open justice is a reality. The task before us now is to create institutions to facilitate this.
(GS Bajpai is Vice-Chancellor, National Law University Delhi. Appreciates the assistance of Vibhuti Sharma, Academic Fellow, NLU Delhi. Views are personal)
Published – 9 Jul 2026 08:30 IST