Delhi High Court Faces ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Challenge from Indian Kanoon
In a significant legal proceeding, the online legal database, Indian Kanoon, presented its case before the Delhi High Court, highlighting a perceived inconsistency in the enforcement of the “right to be forgotten.” This legal principle aims to protect individuals from having their identities publicly linked to past legal cases. The hearing was conducted by a Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar, focusing on an appeal against a previous ruling by a single judge on May 29.
The May 29 ruling outlined guidelines for concealing personal details in publicly available judgments, safeguarding the privacy rights of certain litigants. At that time, Indian Kanoon was directed to disable its name-based search functionality for cases involving these individuals, allowing access only through case numbers, citations, and court details. The platform has since argued that this directive uniquely affects it, as other legal databases such as Manupatra and SCC Online continue to provide unrestricted access to the same judgments.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Indian Kanoon, argued that the directive imposes an undue burden solely on their platform. He noted, “The judgment persists on other platforms like SCC Online and Manupatra, while only Indian Kanoon is compelled to restrict access. This disparity not only singles us out but also hampers our operational capabilities, as name-based searches are fundamental to user interactions with our database.”
Indian Kanoon further contended that any redaction of information should be initiated at the court registry level rather than imposed on private entities. Datar emphasized the unique role of legal databases compared to media outlets, asserting that court judgments, being part of the public record, should not be modified without judicial direction.
The Court engaged in a discussion on the broader implications of restricting name-based searches across all legal platforms, recognizing the potential challenges this could pose to legal practitioners. “If name-based searches are disabled universally, accessing judgments would become exceedingly challenging,” the Bench remarked, acknowledging the practical difficulties this could entail.
More Read
On the opposing side, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing parties supporting the May 29 ruling, argued that freely accessible legal databases perpetuate a stigma for those involved in past legal proceedings. Sibal pointed out that de-indexing serves to mitigate this by reducing the public’s ease of access to such information.
The Bench, however, did not find the arguments for maintaining the restrictions compelling enough to issue an interim stay. Instead, they opted to conduct a thorough exploration of the legal and privacy issues at hand in future sessions, scheduling the next hearing for September 2.
Advocates Apar Gupta, Naman Kumar, and Uzma Sheikh also appeared in court representing Indian Kanoon, contributing to the ongoing debate over the balance between public access to legal records and individual privacy rights.
