Erasing Digital Past: Courts Are Listening

In an era where personal information is archived, indexed, and retrievable with the tap of a finger, the concept of being allowed to move on from one's past is increasingly being tested in legal systems around the world. Yet, in India, even today, many remain unaware that the right to seek removal or delisting of such personal data, through what is legally recognised as the “right to be forgotten” is available within our constitutional and judicial discourse. As digital footprints grow harder to erase, the demand for legal recognition of this right has become more pressing than ever. The right to be forgotten is an emerging facet of the right to privacy that entitles individuals to request the removal or delisting of personal information from online platforms when such data is no longer necessary, relevant, or serves any legitimate public interest.

The right to be forgotten first gained prominence in international legal discourse through European jurisprudence, most notably in the landmark judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos^[1]. In this case, the CJEU held that individuals have the right to request search engines like Google to delist links to web pages containing information about them, provided the data is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” The ruling was based on the European Union's Data Protection Directive of 1995, reinforcing the importance of privacy and data protection as fundamental rights under the EU law. This decision not only gave shape to the right to be forgotten as a legal remedy in the digital age but also paved the way for its formal incorporation into Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation, which came into force in 2018. The General Data Protection Regulation applies not only to entities operating within the European Union, but also to organisations located outside the EU if they offer goods or services to, or monitor the behaviour of, individuals in the EU. This extraterritorial scope has made the right to be forgotten a globally relevant standard, influencing privacy debates and legislative developments far beyond Europe.

However, renowned scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, Mr. Robert C. Post critiqued the Google Spain ruling, arguing that it fiercely analyses both privacy and freedom of expression and further warning that delisting may threaten public discourse by impairing the circulation of information essential to democracy. Mr. Kyu Ho Youm further described the Right to Be Forgotten as a pivotal aspect of informational privacy, while cautioning that, especially outside the EU, courts often lean toward transparency, favouring updates and corrections over outright deletion.

In India, the first judicial recognition of the right to be forgotten was laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India^[2]. While the court was primarily examining the scope of the right to privacy under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, it also laid the conceptual foundation for a more specific right concerning informational autonomy.

The Court observed that the right to control the dissemination of personal information is an essential aspect of the right to privacy. It noted that individuals must have the ability to exercise control over their personal data, particularly when it is no longer necessary or relevant. It further recognised that every individual should have the right to control the commercial use of their identity, including their name and image. The judgment also identified informational privacy as a core facet of the broader right to privacy, acknowledging that individuals have a legitimate interest in preventing the unwarranted or indefinite availability of their personal data. These pronouncements collectively marked the beginning of judicial recognition of the right to be forgotten in Indian constitutional thought, even though the right itself was not explicitly articulated or enforced.

The High Court of Delhi, in ABC v. State & Anr.^[3], expressly held that the right to be forgotten forms part of the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that there is no reason why an individual who has been duly cleared of any guilt by law should be allowed to be haunted by the remnants of such accusations easily accessible to the public. The court further observed that such continued exposure would violate an individual's right to privacy and dignity. It added that once criminal proceedings have been quashed, no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet and emphasised that masking names in records is necessary to ensure fairness and proportionality.

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ABCD v. State of Haryana^[4], delivered a significant ruling that further strengthened the constitutional foundation of the right to be forgotten in Indian jurisprudence. The Court recognised the right to be forgotten as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, encompassing both the right to privacy and the right to live with dignity. It held that the continued public availability of a person's name in connection with criminal proceedings, after the individual has been exonerated serves no legitimate purpose and unjustly impairs their personal and professional life. Emphasising the lasting consequences of digital records in the age of internet searches and background checks, the Court directed that the petitioner's name be redacted from judicial documents and delisted from digital platforms. This ruling reflects a deepening judicial consensus that informational autonomy and the ability to move on from past allegations are essential to the realisation of dignity and liberty in the digital era.

Although Indian courts have increasingly recognised the right to be forgotten as a component of the right to privacy under Article 21, its implementation in practice remains complex and uneven. In the absence of a detailed statutory framework, particularly with respect to digital delisting and anonymisation, courts are often required to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis, guided by principles of fairness, proportionality, and dignity. This case-specific approach, while constitutionally grounded, has led to varying outcomes depending on the nature of the facts, the forum involved, and the stage of the proceedings. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, though a significant legislative step in India's data protection landscape, does not explicitly address the scope or procedure for exercising the right to be forgotten in relation to public records, search engine indexing, or judicial transparency. Its provisions on data erasure primarily concern private data fiduciaries and may not fully extend to scenarios where sensitive personal information is publicly available in legal databases or media archives. As a result, individuals seeking relief continue to rely on judicial discretion, in the absence of a clear legislative roadmap or administrative mechanism for enforcement.

As India navigates the evolving terrain of digital privacy, the right to be forgotten has emerged as a crucial but still-developing concept within its constitutional framework. Judicial pronouncements have provided meaningful relief in appropriate cases, acknowledging the long-term harm that outdated or irrelevant online information can cause to an individual's dignity and future. However, in the absence of explicit legislative clarity, particularly on the scope, applicability, and enforcement of this right, the legal landscape remains uncertain. As public awareness grows and courts continue to engage with the nuances of informational autonomy, the right to be forgotten is likely to play an increasingly central role in India's broader discourse on digital rights, individual freedom, and the balance between memory and reinvention.

Until the Supreme Court of India delivers a comprehensive ruling on the issue, the road ahead remains open and undoubtedly, interesting times await.

Author is an advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India. Views Are Personal. 

1. Case C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, Judgment of 13 May 2014 (CJEU) ↑

2. (2017) 10 SCC 1 ↑

3. 2024 SCC Online Del 8113 ↑

4. 2025:PHHC:029077 ↑