Delhi High Court Recognises ‘Right to be Forgotten’ under Article 21 — Framework for De‑indexing Judicial Records

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Delhi High Court — the high court of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, a constitutional court that interprets laws and protects fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Delhi High Court</span> on <strong>May 29, 2026</strong> delivered a 144‑page judgment that links the <span class="key-term" data-definition="right to be forgotten — a privacy right that allows a person to ask for removal of personal data from public digital access when it no longer serves a legitimate public purpose (GS2: Polity)">right to be forgotten</span> to the constitutional <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — provision of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include privacy (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span>. The court set out a detailed framework for <span class="key-term" data-definition="de-indexing — the process of removing a web page or document from search‑engine results so that it cannot be retrieved through name‑based queries (GS2: Polity)">de-indexing</span> of judicial records and masking of personal identifiers from publicly accessible court databases.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The court held that individuals acquitted, discharged, or whose cases are quashed can request removal of their names from search results.</li> <li>Search engines like <span class="key-term" data-definition="search engines — online platforms that crawl, index and retrieve web content based on user queries, e.g., Google (GS2: Polity)">search engines</span> must disable name‑based search functionality for such records.</li> <li>De‑indexing directions are to be applied globally, affecting all platforms that host the judgments.</li> <li>Exceptions: No relief for persons convicted of offences against women or children, or for crimes involving breach of public trust by public servants, elected representatives, or fiduciaries.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• Over 30 petitions were heard, filed by acquitted criminals, parties to matrimonial disputes, and others whose names appeared incidentally in court records.<br> • The petitioners argued that continued online visibility caused "disproportionate and continuing harm" to reputation and livelihood.<br> • The judgment emphasizes that while the principle of <span class="key-term" data-definition="open justice — the doctrine that judicial proceedings and records should be accessible and transparent to the public to ensure accountability (GS2: Polity)">open justice</span> requires records to remain available, it does not obligate commercial search engines to keep a person's name as a permanent retrieval key.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The case illustrates the intersection of constitutional law, digital privacy, and governance. Aspirants should note how the judiciary interprets <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — provision of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include privacy (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span> to protect privacy in the digital age, a recurring theme in GS‑2 (Polity). It also highlights the need for a statutory framework on data protection, linking to ongoing policy debates on the Personal Data Protection Bill. Understanding the balance between <span class="key-term" data-definition="open justice — the doctrine that judicial proceedings and records should be accessible and transparent to the public to ensure accountability (GS2: Polity)">open justice</span> and individual privacy is essential for answering ethics and governance questions in GS‑4.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>• The judiciary may prompt Parliament to enact a comprehensive law governing the <span class="key-term" data-definition="right to be forgotten — a privacy right that allows a person to ask for removal of personal data from public digital access when it no longer serves a legitimate public purpose (GS2: Polity)">right to forgotten</span>.<br> • Courts will likely develop detailed guidelines on when de‑indexing is appropriate, especially for offences involving public trust.<br> • Digital platforms must update their algorithms to comply with global de‑indexing orders, ensuring that privacy rights are respected without compromising the principle of <span class="key-term" data-definition="open justice — the doctrine that judicial proceedings and records should be accessible and transparent to the public to ensure accountability (GS2: Polity)">open justice</span>.<br> • UPSC aspirants should monitor subsequent judgments and legislative proposals to gauge the evolving legal landscape of privacy and data governance.</p>