The Right to be Forgotten, Meaning, Development in India

The Right to be Forgotten is an emerging dimension of the right to privacy that enables individuals to seek the removal, de-indexing, or restricted accessibility of personal information that is outdated, irrelevant, or disproportionately harmful. In the digital age, where personal data can remain accessible indefinitely, it has become increasingly important to protect informational privacy, dignity, and reputation.

In India, the Right to be Forgotten has evolved through judicial interpretation of Article 21, particularly following the Supreme Court’s landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgement. However, its exercise must be balanced against freedom of speech, public interest, and open justice. The Right to be Forgotten, therefore, remains a qualified right requiring careful legal and constitutional safeguards.

Right to be Forgotten Meaning

The Right to be Forgotten seeks to protect an individual's informational privacy by limiting unnecessary public access to personal data without erasing legitimate public records.

• Protection of Personal Privacy: The Right to Be Forgotten enables individuals to regain control over their personal information in the digital space.
  • It allows individuals to seek de-indexing, delinking, or restricted accessibility of personal information that has become outdated or irrelevant or causes disproportionate harm.
• Part of Informational Privacy: The right strengthens an individual's ability to control the dissemination of personal data. It primarily protects informational privacy and individual dignity in the digital age.
• Balancing Competing Rights: The right seeks to protect privacy without undermining democratic values. It balances individual privacy with freedom of expression and the public's right to know.
• International Development: The modern Right to be Forgotten has developed through international privacy jurisprudence, particularly in Europe.
  • The European Court of Justice's 2014 Google Spain judgement established an important precedent for de-indexing certain personal information from search results.
  • Article 17 of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation subsequently provided for erasure of personal data in specified circumstances, subject to exceptions such as freedom of expression, legal obligations and public interest.

Right to be Forgotten in India

Although India does not have a dedicated RTBF law, Constitutional courts have gradually recognised it as an aspect of the right to privacy.

• Constitutional Foundation: RTBF has evolved through judicial interpretation rather than constitutional text. The Supreme Court's Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, laying its constitutional foundation.
• Limited Statutory Recognition: India's data protection law provides only partial protection. The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises a limited right to correction and erasure of personal data but does not expressly recognise RTBF.
  • Section 17(1)(b) exempts certain processing by courts and tribunals when necessary for performing their judicial or related statutory functions. These provisions should not be interpreted as a blanket exclusion of all judicial records.
  • Also, unlike Article 17 of the GDPR of the European Union, the DPDP Act does not create a comprehensive statutory RTBF or mechanisms for de-indexing search engine results.
• Preference for De-Indexing: Indian courts generally seek to preserve both privacy and judicial transparency. They have preferred de-indexing or masking of personal information instead of deleting judicial records.
• Judicial Recognition: High Courts have progressively expanded privacy protections in deserving cases. RTBF has been recognised for acquitted persons, matrimonial disputes, and victims of sexual offences, subject to judicial scrutiny.
• Emerging Jurisprudence: Recent judicial developments have significantly shaped the contours of RTBF. The Delhi High Court's 2026 judgement in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India recognised RTBF as a facet of informational privacy under Article 21.

‹ ›

Right to be Forgotten Case Laws 

The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) in India has largely evolved through judicial interpretation rather than legislative enactment.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

• The Supreme Court of India unanimously declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Article 14 and Article 19.
• The Court recognised informational privacy as an essential component of personal liberty, acknowledging an individual's right to exercise control over personal data.
• Justice S.K. Kaul, in his concurring opinion, expressly discussed the Right to be Forgotten, observing that individuals should be able to restrict or remove personal information that has become unnecessary, irrelevant, or outdated.
• The judgement clarified that RTBF is not an absolute right and must be balanced against freedom of expression, public interest, and the right to information.
• Although the Court did not formally recognise RTBF as an independent fundamental right, it laid the constitutional basis on which subsequent High Courts developed the doctrine.

Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026) – Delhi High Court

• The Delhi High Court held that the Right to be Forgotten is a constitutional facet of informational privacy under Article 21, flowing directly from the principles laid down in the Puttaswamy judgement.
• The Court distinguished between deletion and de-indexing, holding that judicial records should ordinarily remain intact while preventing name-based searches through search engines and legal databases.
• It introduced the concept of "informational self-determination," recognising an individual's right to control the dissemination of personal information.
• The Court held that relief may be granted to acquitted persons, discharged accused, victims of sexual offences, and parties to matrimonial disputes, depending on the facts of each case.
• It emphasised that RTBF is not automatic and must be decided through a balancing test, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, passage of time, reputational harm, continuing public interest, and open justice.
• The judgement directed legal databases and search engines to de-index or mask names instead of deleting judicial records, thereby protecting privacy while preserving the integrity of public records.
• It also observed that, in appropriate cases, global de-indexing may be necessary to provide effective relief.

Right to be Forgotten Challenges

The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) in India faces several constitutional, legal, and technological challenges due to the absence of a dedicated statutory framework and the need to balance privacy with other competing rights.

• Absence of a Comprehensive Law: Lack of statutory recognition creates legal uncertainty. India does not have dedicated RTBF legislation, resulting in reliance on judicial interpretation.
• Conflict with Free Speech: Privacy claims often compete with other constitutional freedoms. RTBF must be balanced against Article 19(1)(a), including freedom of speech, press, and the public's right to information.
• Open Justice Principle: Judicial transparency limits the scope of information removal. Courts are required to preserve public access to judicial records, making complete deletion difficult.
• Limited Scope of DPDP Act: Existing data protection law does not comprehensively address RTBF. The DPDP Act 2023 excludes certain judicial records and provides only a limited right to erasure.
• Inconsistent Judicial Approach: Divergent rulings have created uncertainty across jurisdictions. Different High Courts have adopted varying standards while recognising RTBF.
• Technological Constraints: Digital information is difficult to erase permanently. Online data is frequently replicated, cached, and archived across multiple platforms.
• Cross-border Enforcement Issues: Global digital platforms pose jurisdictional challenges. Enforcing de-indexing orders beyond India remains legally and practically difficult.
• Risk of Misuse: RTBF should not become a tool to suppress legitimate public information. Convicted persons or public figures may misuse the right to evade accountability.

Right to be Forgotten Way Forward

The effective implementation of the Right to be Forgotten requires a comprehensive legal and institutional framework that protects informational privacy while preserving transparency, open justice, accountability, and freedom of expression.

• Enact a Dedicated Legal Framework: A statutory framework would provide clarity and uniformity. Parliament should clearly define the scope, conditions, exceptions, and remedies relating to RTBF.
• Uniform Supreme Court Guidelines: Judicial consistency is essential for effective implementation. The Supreme Court should establish binding principles applicable across India.
• Treat RTBF as a Qualified Right: Privacy must coexist with other constitutional values. RTBF should remain subject to public interest, transparency, and freedom of expression.
• Institutionalise De-indexing: A proportionate remedy can balance competing interests. De-indexing or masking should remain the preferred remedy instead of deleting judicial records.
• Create an Effective Institutional Mechanism: Efficient grievance redressal would reduce unnecessary litigation. A specialised authority under the DPDP framework should process RTBF requests.
• Clarify Cross-border Enforcement: Digital governance requires internationally workable solutions. India should establish clear standards for enforcing RTBF against global intermediaries.
• Adopt Objective Eligibility Criteria: Predictable standards would reduce arbitrary decisions. Factors such as time elapsed, nature of offence, and continuing public interest should guide RTBF claims.
• Prevent Misuse Through Safeguards: Privacy protection should not undermine public accountability. The law should preserve access to information relating to convicted persons, public officials, and matters of significant public interest.