Delhi High Court Affirms Right to Be Forgotten
The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step in recognizing the ‘right to be forgotten’ as a crucial component of the right to privacy, which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Sachin Datta delivered a landmark ruling stating that individuals have the right to request the removal or masking of personal information from online court documents when such information poses a threat to their privacy, dignity, or reputation.
The court emphasized that this right is an evolution of privacy in the digital era, where information on the internet can be nearly permanent. Justice Datta noted, “The right to be forgotten reflects the adaptation of privacy in an age where digital footprints are almost indelible. It ensures that individuals have control over their personal data, protecting them from the constant exposure to past events that are no longer relevant, thereby safeguarding their dignity and autonomy.”
Framework for Masking Personal Information
The judgment was passed in response to several petitions seeking to de-index, de-link, or remove online content. Petitioners included individuals who had been acquitted of criminal charges, those involved in matrimonial disputes, and others whose names appeared inadvertently in legal proceedings. They contended that continued online access to their past legal involvements adversely affected their professional and personal lives.
Petitioners also sought action against legal platforms like Indian Kanoon, which publishes court orders online. They argued that these platforms should be directed to mask parties’ names to prevent them from appearing in search results.
In its detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court outlined a framework for handling requests to de-index or remove personal information from online judicial records. According to Justice Datta, masking should be done in a way that upholds the individuals’ privacy while maintaining the integrity of judicial records. The framework specifies that names and other personal identifiers should be concealed, but the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the judgments should remain publicly accessible.
More Read
Implementation and Future Considerations
Unredacted versions of these judgments will remain in court records and will be accessible to courts, parties, and authorities for valid legal purposes. Masking will apply to both existing and future digital versions of judgments. Once a court order for masking is issued, search engines and legal databases are required to de-index the judgment from name-based searches.
The court also noted that judicial forums have the authority to review or revoke masking orders if circumstances change. Applications for such orders should be processed promptly, considering the ongoing harm caused by the online presence of personal information.
