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

Overview The Delhi High Court on May 29, 2026 delivered a 144‑page judgment that links the right to be forgotten to the constitutional Article 21 . The court set out a detailed framework for de-indexing of judicial records and masking of personal identifiers from publicly accessible court databases. Key Developments The court held that individuals acquitted, discharged, or whose cases are quashed can request removal of their names from search results. Search engines like search engines must disable name‑based search functionality for such records. De‑indexing directions are to be applied globally, affecting all platforms that host the judgments. 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. Important Facts • Over 30 petitions were heard, filed by acquitted criminals, parties to matrimonial disputes, and others whose names appeared incidentally in court records. • The petitioners argued that continued online visibility caused "disproportionate and continuing harm" to reputation and livelihood. • The judgment emphasizes that while the principle of open justice requires records to remain available, it does not obligate commercial search engines to keep a person's name as a permanent retrieval key. UPSC Relevance The case illustrates the intersection of constitutional law, digital privacy, and governance. Aspirants should note how the judiciary interprets Article 21 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 open justice and individual privacy is essential for answering ethics and governance questions in GS‑4. Way Forward • The judiciary may prompt Parliament to enact a comprehensive law governing the right to forgotten . • Courts will likely develop detailed guidelines on when de‑indexing is appropriate, especially for offences involving public trust. • Digital platforms must update their algorithms to comply with global de‑indexing orders, ensuring that privacy rights are respected without compromising the principle of open justice . • UPSC aspirants should monitor subsequent judgments and legislative proposals to gauge the evolving legal landscape of privacy and data governance.