Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, which established informational privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, which established informational privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court constitutionally recognized privacy, including informational privacy and information self-determination, as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21.
Way AheadOperationalizing the DPDP Act: The government must notify the rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and fully operationalize the Data Protection Board to address erasure requests efficiently.
The government must notify the rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and fully operationalize the Data Protection Board to address erasure requests efficiently.
GS 2 The Right to be Forgotten
Context: The Delhi High Court laid down a landmark framework governing the right to be forgotten in India through its ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India.
The Right to be Forgotten
About The Right to be Forgotten :
What it is?
The right to be forgotten empowers individuals to seek the removal, erasure, or de-indexing of their personal information from public digital platforms and search engines. It is invoked when the continued digital accessibility of such information—like past accusations or obsolete legal disputes—causes ongoing harm and no longer serves any legitimate public interest.
Background of the Right to be Forgotten :
The European Origins: The concept gained global prominence in 2014 when a Spanish citizen, Mario Costeja González, successfully petitioned the European Court of Justice against Google to remove outdated newspaper notices regarding a settled debt.
The concept gained global prominence in 2014 when a Spanish citizen, Mario Costeja González, successfully petitioned the European Court of Justice against Google to remove outdated newspaper notices regarding a settled debt. Codification in the EU: Following the Spanish landmark ruling, the right to erasure was formally codified and incorporated into Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Following the Spanish landmark ruling, the right to erasure was formally codified and incorporated into Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Evolution in Indian Law: The foundation for the right in India was laid by the Supreme Court’s K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, which established informational privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The foundation for the right in India was laid by the Supreme Court’s K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, which established informational privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Pre-2026 Legal Vacuum: Before the recent Delhi High Court judgment, India lacked a coherent statutory framework; various High Courts took divergent approaches, with some allowing name masking and others refusing it on the grounds of open justice.
Need for the Right to be Forgotten in India:
Permanent Stigma Despite Acquittal: Innocent individuals continue to suffer because name-based searches yield historical accusations rather than acquittals.
Innocent individuals continue to suffer because name-based searches yield historical accusations rather than acquittals. Protection of Victims and Falsely Accused: Digital permanence ruins the reputations of those falsely accused of heinous crimes even after courts clear them.
Digital permanence ruins the reputations of those falsely accused of heinous crimes even after courts clear them. Shielding Private Matrimonial Disputes: Purely private family matters that carry no continuing public value can cause unnecessary social stigma if left easily searchable.
Purely private family matters that carry no continuing public value can cause unnecessary social stigma if left easily searchable. Preventing Harm from Incidental Mentions: Some people suffer reputational damage simply by being tangentially related to a case without any personal involvement.
Court Judgments:
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court constitutionally recognized privacy, including informational privacy and information self-determination, as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21.
The Supreme Court constitutionally recognized privacy, including informational privacy and information self-determination, as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026): The Delhi High Court ruled that the right to be forgotten naturally flows from Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and informational privacy, operating even against private commercial entities.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the right to be forgotten naturally flows from Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and informational privacy, operating even against private commercial entities. The Structured Proportionality Test: The Delhi High Court established that the retention of digital records must have a legitimate purpose, and any harm to privacy must be carefully weighed against the public interest.
Way Ahead
Operationalizing the DPDP Act: The government must notify the rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and fully operationalize the Data Protection Board to address erasure requests efficiently.
The government must notify the rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and fully operationalize the Data Protection Board to address erasure requests efficiently. Establishing a Tiered Dispute System: To prevent judicial bottlenecks, erasure requests should first be handled by tech platforms, escalated to the Data Protection Board if contested, and only reach the courts for final judicial review.
To prevent judicial bottlenecks, erasure requests should first be handled by tech platforms, escalated to the Data Protection Board if contested, and only reach the courts for final judicial review. Improving Digital Accuracy Over Obfuscation : Legal databases must be mandated to regularly refresh their systems to display contextual updates—such as subsequent acquittals or discharges—rather than relying solely on hiding information.
Legal databases must be mandated to regularly refresh their systems to display contextual updates—such as subsequent acquittals or discharges—rather than relying solely on hiding information. Ensuring Cross-Platform Technical Compliance: The right remains largely symbolic if de-indexing only occurs on one search engine; a coordinated technical mechanism is required to prevent archive copies and social media mirrors from resurfacing redacted data.
The right remains largely symbolic if de-indexing only occurs on one search engine; a coordinated technical mechanism is required to prevent archive copies and social media mirrors from resurfacing redacted data. Awaiting Supreme Court Ratification: While the Delhi High Court has laid down an important framework, a definitive Supreme Court ruling is necessary to create a binding, nationwide standard balancing privacy with open justice.
Conclusion :
The recognition of the right to be forgotten marks a crucial step in shielding citizens from the perpetual shadow of crime caused by an unforgiving digital memory.By balancing informational privacy with open justice through name masking rather than total deletion, the judiciary has forged a balanced middle path.However, its ultimate success will depend on robust technical compliance from tech giants and the active enforcement of the DPDP Act across India.
