Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Issue: Whether a person can seek removal or masking of personal information from judicial records and search engine results to protect privacy.
Facts: Several petitioners requested:
De-indexing of court orders from search engines.
Masking of their names and personal details in court records.
Protection from continued reputational harm caused by easy online access to old judicial records.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court held that the Right to Be Forgotten is a part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the right is not absolute and must be balanced against:
1) Open justice 2) Freedom of speech, 3) Public interest, and 4) Transparency of judicial proceedings.
Principles Laid Down:
Courts may direct de-indexing of judgments from search engines in appropriate cases.
Courts may mask names or personal identifiers where justice so requires.
Each case must be decided on its own facts.
Relief should not be granted if it would conceal serious crimes, offences against women or children, or matters involving significant public interest.
Significance:
It is among the most important Delhi High Court privacy judgments in recent years.
It provides a practical framework for balancing privacy with judicial transparency in the digital era.
It is expected to guide future cases involving online judicial records and personal data.
The landmark 2026 Right to Be Forgotten case in India is Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, delivered by the Delhi High Court on May 29, 2026. The court formally affirmed that the Right to Be Forgotten is an essential part of the right to privacy under Article 21.
Right to Be Forgotten:
Search engines and legal databases like Indian Kanoon were directed to disable name-based searches for acquitted persons, discharged litigants, or private disputes, while keeping the actual court judgments accessible via case numbers or citations.
The Privacy Framework — Constitutional Underpinning
The Right to be Forgotten in India flows from the right to privacy recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by the Supreme Court in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) judgment.
India currently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework governing the right to be forgotten — the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 touches on related concepts but does not fully codify this right.
The Delhi HC’s order fills this gap through judicial interpretation — holding that the right to informational privacy and informational self-determination must be actively protected even in the absence of specific legislation.