The online legal judgment repository, Indian Kanoon, presented its concerns before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday regarding the implications of a recent ruling on the ‘right to be forgotten.’ The platform is now mandated to de-index and disable its name-based search feature for a series of judgments and orders, as per the High Court’s directive. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar represented Indian Kanoon in front of a Division Bench consisting of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar.
Appeal Against Single-Judge Ruling
The court was considering a set of appeals lodged by Indian Kanoon against a single-judge ruling issued on June 1, which recognized the ‘right to be forgotten’ and instructed the company to adjust its search functionalities. Arvind Datar argued that Indian Kanoon is uniquely burdened by this judgment, as no similar directives were issued to other legal information platforms. “I am the only legal website affected by this order,” Datar emphasized, noting that all legal websites provide comprehensive search capabilities.
Challenges in Implementation
Datar expressed the platform’s operational difficulties, revealing that Indian Kanoon had already removed 80 judgments in compliance with the order. With pending appeals and no notices issued yet, Datar urged the court to expedite the hearing, proposing an earlier date than the scheduled October session. “The October date is too distant, and similar cases are emerging in other courts citing this as a precedent,” he argued.
Court’s Response
The Bench agreed to consider the appeal for a preliminary hearing on August 13, acknowledging the platform’s urgent situation. The initial ruling by Justice Sachin Datta had acknowledged individuals’ rights to have their names removed from searchable court records if deemed irrelevant or serving no public purpose.
Legal Grounds for Appeal
In its appeal, Indian Kanoon argued that the single-judge ruling misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India. The platform contended that the brief remarks on the ‘right to be forgotten’ were obiter dicta—comments made in passing—and do not establish an enforceable right for individuals to erase their names from court records.
More Read
Indian Kanoon further argued that the criteria of “relevance” and “public purpose” set forth in the ruling are ambiguous, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes across courts. The appeal challenges the ruling’s failure to balance the right to information and open justice under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution against individual privacy claims.
Claims of Discrimination and Business Impact
Indian Kanoon also claimed that the judgment disproportionately targets its platform, violating its right to equality under Article 14, and unnecessarily restricting its business operations under Article 19(1)(g), given that name-based searches are integral to its functionality for legal professionals and researchers. The appeal suggested that any redactions should be managed by court registries instead of being imposed on private platforms.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, supported by advocates Apar Gupta, Naman Kumar, and Uzma Sheikh, is representing Indian Kanoon in its ongoing legal battle.
