Current Affairs Revision Hub

News Item

The Delhi High Court recently laid down principles on the right to be forgotten, holding that the right flows from Article 21 as part of dignity and informational privacy. The ruling came in a batch of over 30 petitions led by Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, where the court considered whether judicial records should be erased, masked or de-indexed to protect privacy.

Background

The right to be forgotten gained global attention after the 2014 Google Spain case, where the European Court of Justice recognised the right to remove outdated or irrelevant search results. In India, the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Since then, High Courts have taken different approaches on whether names in judgments can be masked or search results de-indexed.

Prelims Facts

• The Delhi High Court recognised the right to be forgotten as part of privacy under Article 21.
• The ruling came in a batch of over 30 consolidated petitions led by Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India.
• The court held that retention of personal data must have a legitimate purpose and must be proportionate.
• The court preferred masking or redaction of names instead of deleting entire judgments.
• The court prescribed a two-week deadline for legal databases to comply.
• The Google Spain case, 2014 laid the global foundation for the right to erase, later reflected in Article 17 of the GDPR.
• In India, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right.
• The right to be forgotten often conflicts with Article 19(1)(a), open justice and the public’s right to know.
• The DPDP Act, 2023 provides a limited statutory right to erasure, but does not clearly address judicial records and public archives.
• Effective enforcement requires coordination between courts, legal databases, search engines, social media platforms and data protection institutions.

Mains Focus & Analysis

• The right to be forgotten raises a complex constitutional question: how should law protect a person’s privacy and dignity without weakening open justice and free speech? The Delhi High Court’s approach is balanced because it avoids deleting judicial history and instead focuses on proportionate remedies like masking and de-indexing. However, enforcement remains difficult because search engines, legal databases, archives and social media work differently. India needs a clear institutional framework under the DPDP Act, a strong data protection board and judicial guidance from the Supreme Court to make this right practical.

GS Mapping

GS2: Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, Privacy, Free Speech, Data Protection, Governance