Preserving the record: On the right to be forgotten

Why in News?

The debate on the right to be forgotten has again come into focus after a Delhi High Court order on May 29, 2026 concerning the removal or limited discoverability of certain judicial records from online searches.

The issue highlights a conflict between two important principles:

• Right to informational privacy, recognised by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017
• Open justice, which requires court proceedings and judicial records to remain accessible for public scrutiny

The case shows how digital access to court records can affect privacy, reputation and public memory.

What is the Right to Be Forgotten?

The right to be forgotten means the right of an individual to request removal, deletion, de-indexing or restricted access to personal information available online when such information is outdated, irrelevant, inaccurate or harmful to privacy.

It is also known as the right to erasure in European privacy law.

In simple terms, it allows a person to say: “My past personal information should not remain easily searchable forever if it no longer serves any legitimate public purpose.”

Background

In earlier times, court records were technically public, but access was limited. A person had to physically visit courts or legal archives to find records.

Digitisation changed this situation. Now, judgments and legal records can be easily found through:

• Search engines
• Online legal databases
• Automated archivers
• Court websites
• Digital repositories

This has improved transparency, but it has also created new privacy concerns. Even an old accusation, if searchable by name, can affect a person’s employment, marriage, social life and reputation, even after acquittal or discharge.

Right to Privacy in India

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017, the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

The judgment also recognised informational privacy, which means individuals should have some control over personal information about themselves.

However, the Court also made it clear that privacy is not an absolute right. It can be restricted for:

• Public interest
• Public order
• Legal claims
• Research
• Archiving
• Public health
• Freedom of expression

Thus, the right to be forgotten must be balanced with other constitutional values.

Open Justice Principle

The principle of open justice means that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done.

It allows:

• Public scrutiny of courts
• Transparency in judicial functioning
• Public understanding of law
• Accountability of the justice system
• Creation of historical legal records
• Access to court judgments and legal reasoning

Court records are not only personal documents. They are also official acts of the State and form part of the public record.

Delhi High Court Order

The Delhi High Court considered the privacy concerns of a person whose name was linked with court records available online.

The Court observed that simply updating records may not be enough because search engines may show small parts of a case without proper context. The Court also noted that open justice does not necessarily require every detail of a case to be searchable through the name of the accused person.

However, this approach raises an important concern. If access to original records is restricted, the public record may become incomplete or difficult to verify.

Key Issue: Privacy vs Public Record

The central question is:

Should judicial records be hidden to protect privacy, or should they remain public with proper updates and context?

One view says that if a person is acquitted or discharged, old accusations should not continue to damage their life.

Another view says that court records are public documents and should not be erased or hidden because they are part of the history of justice administration.

A balanced view is that the problem is not always discoverability, but incompleteness. If a person is acquitted, the digital record should clearly show the acquittal or final outcome instead of preserving only the accusation.

Judicial Precedents

1. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994

The Supreme Court recognised the right to be let alone, but also held that public records, including court records, remain open to public comment.

2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right and acknowledged informational privacy.

3. Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat, 2017

The Gujarat High Court denied removal of acquittal details from public records and emphasised the accessibility of court orders.

4. Orissa High Court, 2020

In a case involving online sexual abuse, the Court noted the need for a serious debate on the right to be forgotten.

5. Delhi High Court, 2021

The Court allowed limited removal from search results in a criminal case to protect the petitioner’s social life and career.

6. Supreme Court Order, 2022

The Court directed its registry to create a mechanism for removing personal details of a couple involved in a marital dispute from search engines.

7. Kerala High Court, 2023

The Court held that the right to be forgotten cannot be applied automatically to ongoing court proceedings because of open justice and public interest.

8. Indian Kanoon Matter, 2024

The Court warned that obfuscation of court records may have serious implications for the public record.

Arguments in Favour of the Right to Be Forgotten

• Protects individual privacy and dignity.
• Prevents lifelong punishment through digital memory.
• Helps acquitted persons rebuild their lives.
• Reduces misuse of outdated or irrelevant information.
• Protects victims of sexual crimes and sensitive cases.
• Supports control over personal data.
• Prevents reputational harm from incomplete online records.

Concerns and Challenges

1. Conflict with Open Justice

Court records must remain accessible for transparency and public scrutiny.

2. Impact on Public Records

Deleting or hiding judicial records may weaken the historical record of the justice system.

3. Lack of Uniformity

Different High Courts have taken different approaches, creating legal uncertainty.

4. Freedom of Speech and Press

Excessive removal may affect journalism, legal reporting and public debate.

5. Technical Difficulty

Information copied across websites may not be fully removed from the internet.

6. Risk of Misuse

Powerful persons may try to erase information of genuine public importance.

7. Lack of Statutory Clarity

India does not yet have a clear law specifically dealing with the right to be forgotten in relation to court records.

Way Forward

• India needs a clear legal framework for the right to be forgotten.
• Courts should balance privacy with public interest on a case-by-case basis.
• Judicial records should not be erased casually.
• Instead of removing records, courts may prefer updating, contextualising and redacting sensitive personal details.
• Search results should show the final outcome of a case, such as acquittal, discharge or closure.
• Legal databases and search platforms should regularly refresh their records.
• Sensitive cases involving sexual offences, minors and private family disputes need special protection.
• Public interest must be considered in cases involving public officials, corruption, serious crimes and matters affecting society.
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 should be harmonised with open justice and court record rules.
• An independent mechanism may be created to decide requests for erasure, de-indexing or redaction.

Conclusion

The right to be forgotten is an important part of privacy in the digital age, but it cannot be absolute. Court records serve a public purpose because they preserve the history of justice and allow public scrutiny of the judiciary.

The better solution is not to erase judicial records, but to ensure digital accuracy, proper context and timely updates. If a person is acquitted or discharged, online records must clearly reflect that outcome. This approach protects both privacy and open justice.

India must develop a balanced framework where personal dignity is protected without weakening transparency, public interest and the integrity of judicial records.