Introduction
The concept of the right to be forgotten has emerged as a crucial tool for rehabilitating individuals whose reputations have been tarnished by outdated or irrelevant online information. This principle, rooted in the right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, was notably recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. However, the application of this doctrine becomes contentious when leveraged by corporate entities, such as real estate developers, to erase their digital histories of legal disputes, project delays, or regulatory infractions.
Case Analysis: R.S.S. Estate Limited Liability Partnership & Ors. v. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court recently addressed this issue in the case of R.S.S. Estate Limited Liability Partnership & Ors. v. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.A. 20013/2026). The case originated from an FIR filed under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the Economic Offences Wing in Delhi. After a settlement, the FIR and related proceedings were quashed. Subsequently, the petitioners sought to have their names and identifiers masked from public digital records to prevent them from appearing in search engine results.
On July 13, 2026, the Court dismissed this application, emphasizing the distinction between commercial and personal spheres. The judgment underscored that information about commercial transactions is pertinent to prospective investors and homebuyers, and should remain accessible for informed decision-making.
Judicial Precedents and Doctrinal Framework
The Court’s decision diverged from the principles established in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters, which provided a framework for deindexing and masking judicial records. These measures are intended to protect informational privacy under Article 21, subject to a proportionality analysis weighing individual privacy against public interest. However, the Court in the present case introduced a substantive criterion, arguing that commercial information does not warrant the same privacy protections as personal information.
Implications for the Right to Privacy and Public Interest
The Court further highlighted that the right to be forgotten diminishes when applied to commercial entities. It argued that preserving digital records of commercially significant events serves as a means of accountability, especially in sectors like real estate where trust is fragile and information asymmetry is prevalent. The judgment leaves open the question of whether corporate entities can claim a right to informational privacy under Article 21, or if their claims should be confined to commercial reputation under Article 19(1)(g).
More Read
Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms the importance of maintaining digital records to protect consumer interests and ensure transparency. While the right to be forgotten is a valuable doctrine for personal privacy, its application in the commercial realm must be carefully balanced against the public’s right to know. The decision highlights the necessity of preserving judicial records as a safeguard against misinformation and fraud in the real estate industry.
About the authors: Rohit Bajaj is a Partner, while Abhimanyu Chattree and Arpita Mohapatra are Associates at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
