The Delhi High Court has held that the “Right to Be Forgotten” is a facet of the fundamental right to informational privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court has also evolved a detailed legal framework for granting relief through de-indexing, de-linking, and masking of personal information appearing in judicial records available online.
The ruling was delivered on May 29, 2026, by Justice Sachin Datta in a batch of petitions filed by individuals seeking removal of judicial records, news reports, and internet search results that continued to associate their names with criminal cases, matrimonial disputes, arrests, acquittals, and other sensitive proceedings long after the disputes had concluded.
Table of Contents
Core Issue Before the Court
The principal question before the Court was whether a person whose name appears in judicial records accessible through internet search engines can seek de-indexing of those records from name-based search results and masking of personal identifiers in publicly accessible digital versions of judicial records.
The petitioners included individuals who had been acquitted of criminal charges, discharged from criminal proceedings, parties to matrimonial disputes, and even persons whose names appeared only incidentally in court records. They argued that the continued online availability of such records caused disproportionate harm to their reputation, dignity, employment prospects, and social life.
Right to Privacy Extends to Digital Reputation
The Court noted that the internet has fundamentally altered the nature of public access to information. Information that may have once remained buried in physical records is now instantly retrievable through a simple name-based search.
The judgment emphasized that informational privacy is an integral component of the right to privacy and dignity protected under Article 21. It observed that unrestricted and perpetual accessibility of personal information can adversely affect employment opportunities, social standing, reputation, and personal autonomy.
‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Recognised as Constitutional Protection
While India does not yet have a dedicated statutory framework expressly governing the Right to Be Forgotten, the Court held that constitutional courts are not powerless in the absence of legislation.
Relying on privacy principles recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy Judgment decision, the Court concluded that the Right to Be Forgotten forms part of informational privacy and can be enforced through constitutional remedies. The Court rejected the argument that judicial intervention must await legislative action and observed that constitutional courts are duty-bound to protect fundamental rights even in areas where legislative gaps exist.
Balancing Privacy and Open Justice
A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s effort to balance individual privacy rights against the principle of open justice.
The Court acknowledged that judicial proceedings and judgments are generally public documents and that transparency remains a cornerstone of the justice system. However, it observed that technological developments have transformed the consequences of public accessibility. Information that was once difficult to access can now be located instantly through search engines, magnifying the impact on an individual’s life.
Accordingly, the Court held that privacy and dignity concerns must be weighed against the public interest in continued online accessibility of judicial records.
Distinction Between Removal and De-Indexing
The Court drew an important distinction between complete removal of judicial records and de-indexing.
It explained that de-indexing does not erase or delete the underlying judicial record. Instead, it prevents the record from appearing prominently in search engine results when a person’s name is searched. The original record continues to exist in official repositories and remains accessible through lawful means.
The judgment referred to international developments, including the European approach to de-indexing and the recognition of similar protections under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Categories of Cases Considered
The batch of petitions covered a wide variety of situations, including:
- Acquittals in criminal cases;
- Discharge from criminal proceedings;
- Closure reports accepted by courts;
- Quashed FIRs;
- Matrimonial and family disputes;
- Sexual offence proceedings;
- Cases settled through compromise or mediation;
- Proceedings involving purely private personal information; and
- Cases where individuals were merely mentioned incidentally in judicial records.
The Court analysed each category separately while determining the scope of relief that may be granted.
Case Details
Case Title: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-1489-HC-2026(DEL)
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1021/2016, CM APPL. 4449/2016 &4263/2017
Date: 29.05.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Rohit Madan
Counsel For Respondent: Kaushik Moitra
Read More: JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 30 May, 2026
