By Lucy Rana, Rima Majumdar and Aashi Nema
Introduction
On May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment in a batch of petitions that raised the same question, that stood at the intersection of constitutional law and the digital age viz. whether an individual whose name appears in judicial records that are accessible through internet search engines is entitled, by virtue of the right to informational privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, to seek de-indexing of those records from name-based search results and masking of personal identifiers (including names) from publicly accessible digital versions of those records.
This ruling establishes a comprehensive judicial framework governing requests to restrict personal information contained in judicial records and associated online content available in the public domain.
Background and Context
The petitions arose in an environment where digitization of court records has made judgments, including those naming parties in criminal, matrimonial, insolvency, and other sensitive proceedings, permanently and universally searchable. Petitioners sought relief on the ground that continued online accessibility of their personal identifiers in judicial records caused disproportionate harm to their privacy, dignity, and reputation, long after the underlying proceedings had concluded.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court observed that in an era where digital records are “virtually permanent,” the right to seek erasure of personal information has become essential to the protection of individual dignity — values which lie at the core of Article 21 as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC.
The Right to Be Forgotten: Constitutional Basis
The Court held that the Right to Be Forgotten, understood as the right of an individual to seek removal or masking of personal information from online platforms where continued accessibility causes disproportionate harm, is not merely a statutory or data protection concept but an integral part of the right to privacy under Article 21. This formulation goes beyond existing statutory frameworks, including the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, by grounding the right directly in constitutional guarantees.
The Court expressly observed: “India presently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework explicitly governing the right to be forgotten. However, the absence of specific legislation does not preclude Constitutional Courts from recognising and enforcing this right.” This is a crucial clarification: since the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not expressly codify the right to be forgotten, the Court’s holding fills this gap by providing a judicially enforceable constitutional remedy pending legislative action.
The right to be forgotten now operates as a constitutional claim directly enforceable against private intermediaries, including search engines such as Google and legal databases such as Indian Kanoon, through the framework of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It is not confined to claims against state or quasi-state actors alone.
The Two Reliefs: (I) De-Indexing and (Ii) Masking
The Court articulated two distinct reliefs available under the right to be forgotten framework. They operate at different levels and address different dimensions of the same underlying harm. Both may be sought, and both may be granted in an appropriate case.
De-Indexing:
De-indexing (also used interchangeably with “De-linking”) refers to the removal of a specific URL or record from the name-based search results generated by a search engine or legal database platform in response to a query entered in the name of an individual. De-indexing does not erase the underlying judicial record. As the Court observed:
“The judgment or order continues to exist on the court’s website, on Indian Kanoon, or on whichever platform hosts it. It remains accessible to anyone who knows the case number, the citation, the court, or any other purposeful identifier. The record is preserved in its entirety for institutional, precedential and accountability purposes. What changes is only that the concerned name ceases to function as an unlimited retrieval key that instantly and effortlessly surfaces the record for any casual internet user who happens to search that name.”
The Court’s de-indexing directions were not limited to judicial records alone. They expressly covered news articles, videos, and associated reportage as well. In multiple individual disposals including petitions concerning quashed FIRs, settled criminal proceedings, and private disputes, the Court directed de-indexing of news articles and online content reporting on those proceedings, in addition to the underlying judicial orders.
The Court also noted that algorithmic search results are not a function of open justice but are designed to maximise commercial interest, ranking results by engagement metrics such as clicks and shares, rather than by accuracy or completeness. A name-based search in conjunction with terms such as “arrested,” “accused,” or “case” returns results ranked by engagement, not by accuracy. De-indexing moderates this disproportionate amplification.
For Indian Kanoon specifically, the Court directed that it restrict name-based search functionality within its platform in respect of the concerned records which is technically distinct from de-indexing as applied to general search engines. Judgments on Indian Kanoon remain accessible by case number, citation, court details, and date.
Masking:
Masking operates at the level of the court record itself, rather than at the level of the search engine. It refers to the replacement of a party’s name and personal identifiers in the publicly accessible digital version of a judicial record with a neutral reference such as “ABC” or “XYZ,” while preserving the complete, unredacted version in the court’s internal records.
Masking is limited to names and personal identifiers. The reasoning, legal findings, case number, relevant dates, and operative conclusions of judgments remain publicly accessible in full. Upon issuance of a masking order, search engines and legal databases are directed to de-index the judgment from name-based searches, while the judgment remains accessible through other search parameters.
Both the aforesaid options are directed only for redacting the names of the parties in litigation, while keeping the ratio of the judgment available for anyone to access and use.
The Seven-Factor Framework for Grant or Refusal of De-Indexing
- Nature of the information — whether it pertains to intimate aspects of private life, professional conduct, or matters of public record.
- Time elapsed and continuing relevance — the passage of time since publication and the diminishing relevance of the disclosure.
- Public role of the individual — persons occupying positions of responsibility or public influence are subject to heightened demands of transparency.
- Accuracy and completeness — outdated, misleading, or partial disclosures cannot sustain a continuing intrusion into privacy.
- Impact on dignity and autonomy — reputational harm, social stigma, or disproportionate interference with the individual’s ability to lead a dignified life, weighed against legitimate public welfare served by disclosure.
- Degree of digital accessibility — the amplification effect of search engines on the reach and impact of information.
- Effect on freedom of expression and integrity of public records — ensuring that de-indexing does not undermine the broader informational ecosystem.
Balancing Privacy Against Open Justice
The Court resolved this tension through proportionality. The public interest in knowing the law and having access to judicial reasoning is preserved by keeping the substantive content of judgments intact and accessible. The privacy interest is served by removing the indexing of personal identifiers, which serves no legal or jurisprudential purpose beyond the individual harm it causes.
This proportionality-based approach is consistent with the framework laid down in Puttaswamy and reflects a sophisticated understanding of how digital accessibility changes the privacy calculus, what was once a record accessible only to those who physically visited a court archive is now a permanent, global, and instantaneously searchable disclosure.
Absolute Bars: When Relief Is Not Available
The Court carefully identified categories where relief categorically cannot be granted.
- Public Figures: The right to be forgotten cannot be used as a mechanism for the selective erasure of past conduct by those who have voluntarily assumed a public identity. The mere passage of time does not extinguish the public interest in the conduct of a person who remains a public figure. This principle was applied to dismiss the petition of television celebrity Ashutosh Kaushik, who sought removal of decade-old content depicting incidents of drunken behaviour in the public domain. If the content is demonstrably false or inaccurate, a separate cause of action in defamation may be available, but the right to be forgotten does not provide that route for public figures.
- Serious Criminal Convictions: The right to be forgotten cannot be invoked to efface serious criminal culpability. The petition of a person convicted by the Leicester Crown Court of the United Kingdom for blackmail and fraud was rejected, with the Court noting that the conviction was of relatively recent vintage and retained continuing relevance to those who may have occasion to deal with him.
- Convictions for Offences Against Women or Children: No relief is available in respect of such convictions.
- Breach of Public Trust or Corruption: Persons holding positions of public trust cannot invoke this right to shield their exercise of that trust from public scrutiny.
Implications for Search Engines and Legal Databases
The Court’s directions operate under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Google LLC, Google Inc., Google India Private Limited, and all other search engine operators are directed to de-index the relevant content from name-based search results in all cases where relief has been granted. MEITY has been directed to communicate these directions to all relevant intermediary platforms operating within India and to file a compliance affidavit within four weeks. A two-week compliance timeline has been set for intermediaries. These directions are grounded in an existing and well-established statutory framework which provides a clear legal basis for compliance obligations on private intermediaries, including those headquartered outside India.
Key Takeaways :
Individuals who have been named in judicial records such as in criminal, matrimonial, insolvency, or other sensitive proceedings, may seek de-indexing where the underlying proceedings have concluded, the petitioner is a private individual, and continued digital accessibility serves no legitimate public interest. Relief extends to both judicial records and associated news articles and reportage.
Absolute bars exist for public figures in respect of public conduct, serious criminal convictions, convictions for offences against women or children, and breach of public trust. These must be assessed at the threshold.
For victims of sexual offences, relief is available as a statutory right under Section 228A IPC / Section 72 BNS, and not merely as judicial discretion, and this must be given effect forthwith.
In an age where the internet never forgets, this judgment reminds us that the law can, and in appropriate cases, must ensure that the weight of the past does not permanently extinguish the possibility of the future.
Also read:
https://ssrana.in/articles/right-to-be-forgotten-judicial-publicly-available-documents/
https://ssrana.in/articles/right-to-be-forgotten-supreme-court/