On May 29, 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page landmark judgment that could finally change this reality. In a swee
Delhi High Court Frames Right to Be Forgotten Rules: A Landmark Verdict That Could Change How India Remembers You Online
The 144-Page Judgment That Just Rewrote India's Digital Privacy Playbook
Picture this: You were accused of a crime years ago. You fought the case. You won. You were acquitted. The court said you were innocent. But every time someone Googles your name, that old case — that arrest, that accusation, that humiliation — pops right up at the top of the search results. Your acquittal? Buried somewhere below, if it appears at all. Employers see it. Neighbors see it. Potential partners see it. The internet has sentenced you to a life of perpetual digital shame, even though the actual court cleared your name.
For thousands of Indians, this isn't a hypothetical scenario. It's a daily nightmare.
On May 29, 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page landmark judgment that could finally change this reality. In a sweeping decision that recognized the "Right to Be Forgotten" (RTBF) as a constitutionally protected facet of the Right to Privacy under Article 21, the court laid down a comprehensive framework for de-indexing judicial records from search engines and masking personal identifiers from publicly accessible court records.
The verdict wasn't just a legal ruling. It was a philosophical statement about dignity, redemption, and what it means to be human in the digital age.
What Exactly Is the Right to Be Forgotten? Let's Break It Down
Before we dive into the meat of this judgment, let's understand what we're really talking about here.
The Right to Be Forgotten is essentially your right to say: "Hey, that old information about me online? It's outdated, irrelevant, or deeply unfair. I want it gone — or at least, I want it harder to find."
It's not about rewriting history. It's not about censorship. It's about proportionality and dignity. It's about recognizing that humans grow, change, and deserve second chances — but algorithms don't care about any of that. They just keep surfacing your worst moments, forever.
The concept isn't new globally. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) codified this right in 2018, following the landmark Google Spain case of 2014, where the Court of Justice of the European Union held that individuals could request search engines to delist links containing outdated or irrelevant personal information.
But in India? We've been stumbling in the dark. Until now.
The 38 Petitioners: Real Stories, Real Pain
This wasn't some abstract legal exercise. The Delhi High Court was dealing with over 30 petitions (some reports say 38) — the oldest dating back to 2016 — filed by real people with real grievances.
Who were these petitioners?
• Individuals acquitted of criminal charges — including those acquitted by the CBI, those acquitted of charges of abetment of suicide and cruelty, those acquitted of charges of rape, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation, and those acquitted of sexual offence charges
• Parties to matrimonial disputes — where private family matters had become permanently searchable public records
• Persons whose proceedings had been quashed or settled — where the legal system had effectively said "this shouldn't have happened," but the digital trail remained
• Individuals whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records — people who weren't even parties to proceedings but got swept up in the digital net
They all shared one devastating complaint: The continued availability and name-based searchability of judicial records bearing their names in the digital public domain causes disproportionate and continuing harm to their reputations, dignity, and life prospects.
Think about that for a second. A person acquitted of rape — legally, completely innocent — still has their name permanently linked to a rape case every time someone searches them. An acquittal buried at the bottom of search results while the arrest dominates the top. That's not justice. That's a digital scarlet letter.
Justice Datta's Powerful Rationale: Why the Internet's Memory Needs Limits
Justice Datta didn't mince words. He understood that we live in an era where "digital records are virtually indelible" and where the "internet does not forget and does not let humans forget."
His judgment is filled with passages that read like philosophy as much as law:
• "In a society where digital records are virtually indelible, the ability to seek erasure ensures that informational self-determination remains effective."
• "It protects individuals from perpetual exposure to past events that may no longer bear relevance, while preserving their dignity and autonomy in society."
• "Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget."
• "People are entitled to begin life again giving up past mistakes and to re-invent themselves and reform and correct their mistakes."
But here's where it gets really interesting. Justice Datta made a crucial distinction that shows deep understanding of how the internet actually works:
"The principle of open justice was conceived to ensure that the judicial process is accessible and fully transparent. It would be incongruous if the same serves as justification for the perpetual and indiscriminate amplification of a person's worst travails with legal processes."
In other words: Yes, court records should be public. But "public" doesn't mean "permanently and instantly searchable by any casual internet user through a commercial search engine." There's a difference between a record sitting in a courthouse that a motivated researcher can find, and that same record being thrust into the face of every person who ever searches your name on Google.
The Core Framework: De-Indexing and Masking Explained
So what exactly did the court order? Let's unpack the two key mechanisms:
De-Indexing: Making Your Name Invisible to Search Engines
De-indexing doesn't delete anything. The court was very clear about this. The judgment, the order, the court record — all of it still exists. It remains on the court's website, on legal databases like Indian Kanoon, and anywhere else it was hosted.
What changes is this: Your name stops functioning as a search key.
• Search engines like Google must remove the link between your name and that judicial record from their search results
• Legal databases like Indian Kanoon must disable name-based search functionality for those records
• The record is still accessible if you know the case number, citation, court details, or date
• Anyone doing purposeful legal research can still find it
As the court beautifully put it: "No law authorises Google or any search engine to perpetually index and surface judicial records in a manner that overrides the individual's fundamental right to informational privacy."
Masking: Replacing Names with Neutral Identifiers
Masking goes a step further. It involves replacing names and personal identifiers in publicly accessible digital versions of judicial records with neutral references like "ABC" or "XYZ."
But here's the thing — masking is not censorship. The court was emphatic about this:
• The substance of the judgment remains intact — the reasoning, findings, legal conclusions, case number, court details, relevant dates, everything
• The judicial record retains its full institutional, precedential, and accountability functions
• The complete and un-redacted version is preserved in the court's internal records without exception
• Courts, parties, advocates, and authorities with a legitimate legal purpose can still access the unmasked version
• Masking operates both retrospectively (for existing digital versions) and prospectively (for future digitization)
Justice Datta described this as "a calibrated mechanism that protects informational privacy without undermining the principle of open justice." It's privacy with accountability. Dignity with transparency.
The Proportionality Test: When Will Relief Be Granted?
This is where the judgment gets really nuanced. The court didn't say everyone gets to erase their digital past. Relief depends on a proportionality assessment in each case, weighing several factors:
• The nature of the information — What exactly are we talking about? An acquittal? A conviction? A private dispute?
• Its continuing relevance — Does this information still serve any legitimate purpose today?
• Public interest considerations — Is there a public interest in keeping this accessible?
• The impact on the individual's dignity, reputation, and privacy — How much harm is this causing?
The court identified specific categories where relief is more likely to be granted:
• Persons acquitted of criminal charges — The court held that "persons who have been acquitted, discharged, or whose proceedings have been quashed are entitled to have that legal determination reflected in their digital identity/persona"
• Parties to purely private civil or matrimonial disputes — Where the matter is of a private nature with no public interest in continued accessibility
• Persons whose proceedings have been settled — Where the parties have resolved their differences
• Individuals whose names appear incidentally in judicial records — People who weren't even parties to proceedings
But the court also drew clear red lines — categories where relief would NOT be appropriate:
• Cases involving conviction for offences against women or children — The court held that de-indexing would not be appropriate where a person stands convicted of such offences
• Cases involving conviction for offences involving breach of public trust — Including offences by public servants, elected representatives, and those in positions of fiduciary responsibility
• Cases where there is a legitimate public interest — The court emphasized that the right to be forgotten must be balanced against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, open justice, and the public's right to know
This is crucial. The court isn't saying politicians convicted of corruption get to wipe their records. It's saying there's a hierarchy of interests, and public accountability for serious wrongdoing trumps individual privacy.
The Global Reach: Why This Matters Beyond India's Borders
Here's something that makes this judgment particularly bold: The court directed that de-indexing directions shall operate globally.
That's right. Not just in India. Worldwide.
The court ordered search engines, legal database platforms, and other intermediaries to de-index specified judgments, orders, and related reportage from name-based search results globally, not just on their Indian domains.
This is significant because the internet doesn't respect borders. A person in India can still be harmed by search results on Google.com as much as Google.co.in. The court recognized that localized de-indexing is insufficient when the harm is global.
This puts the Delhi High Court in conversation with courts worldwide that have grappled with the extraterritorial reach of RTBF orders, including the ongoing tensions between European courts and American tech companies over global de-indexing.
The Constitutional Foundation: Why Courts Can Do This Even Without a Specific Law
One of the most powerful parts of Justice Datta's judgment is where he addresses the elephant in the room: India doesn't have a comprehensive statutory framework explicitly governing the right to be forgotten.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — India's first dedicated data protection law — was notified in August 2023 but has not yet come into force. Even when it does, it only provides a limited "Right of Erasure" under Section 12, which is different from the full right to be forgotten and has substantial exemptions.
So did the court overreach? Justice Datta's answer is a resounding no:
• "India presently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework explicitly governing the right to be forgotten. However, the absence of specific legislation does not preclude constitutional courts from recognising and enforcing this right."
• "Constitutional courts are not powerless in the absence of a specific statute."
• The right flows "naturally and necessarily" from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21, as established by the Supreme Court's landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment of 2017
This is judicial creativity at its finest — and its most necessary. The court is saying: "We can't wait for Parliament to act. People's dignity is being destroyed right now. The Constitution gives us the tools to protect them."
The Technical Mechanics: How Will This Actually Work?
The judgment isn't just philosophical; it's practical. Justice Datta laid down specific parameters for how courts should handle masking applications:
• Masking applications must be disposed of expeditiously — Because the harm caused by the availability of personal identifiers is continuing and ongoing
• The concerned Court retains jurisdiction to review and revoke a masking direction — If subsequent circumstances bring the matter within the absolute bars or other categories where relief is not available
• A masking order constitutes an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — This means upon receipt of such an order, Google and other search engine operators are legally obliged to de-index the masked judgment from name-based search results, and Indian Kanoon and other hosts are obliged to disable name-based search functionality
• Petitioners granted de-indexing can also seek masking — They can move an appropriate application before the concerned Court that rendered the original order or judgment, and such applications shall be decided expeditiously
The Bigger Picture: How Did We Get Here?
To truly appreciate this judgment, we need to understand the journey that led to it.
The Puttaswamy Foundation (2017)
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. While the court didn't explicitly recognize the Right to Be Forgotten, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul's concurring opinion laid the philosophical groundwork:
• "In the digital world, preservation is the norm and forgetting a struggle"
• "The right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control his own life would encompass the right to control his existence on the internet"
• However, he cautioned that this is not an absolute right and must be balanced with freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and public interest
Delhi High Court's Evolving Jurisprudence
The Delhi High Court has been at the forefront of recognizing RTBF in India:
• Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media (2019) — During the #MeToo movement, the court restrained republication of articles about harassment allegations, recognizing that the "Right to be forgotten" and the "Right to be left alone" are inherent aspects of the Right to Privacy
• Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021) — The court granted interim relief directing Indian Kanoon to block a judgment where the petitioner was acquitted of narcotics charges, recognizing the irreparable prejudice to his social life and career prospects
• SK v. Union of India (2023) — The court directed masking of the petitioner's name in a judgment where he was acquitted of rape and criminal intimidation charges
• ABC v. State (2024) — Justice Amit Mahajan held that the right to be forgotten is part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21, directing removal of names from case records and search results
Other High Courts Joining the Conversation
• Karnataka High Court in Vasunathan v. Registrar General (2017) — Observed that in sensitive cases involving women, particularly rape cases affecting modesty and reputation, the right to be forgotten should be followed
• Kerala High Court in Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India (2022) — Dealt extensively with the evolution of the right to be forgotten and the right to erasure in the digital space
• Odisha High Court in Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha — Recognized the right in cases involving sexually explicit content, noting that "information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can't get it back in"
But the Madras High Court took a different view in V. Swaminathan v. Registrar General (2021), dismissing a petition seeking redaction of a daughter's name from court records, holding that a High Court being a court of record cannot entertain such petitions in the absence of rules.
This divergence made the Delhi High Court's comprehensive framework all the more necessary.
The Criticisms and Concerns: Not Everyone Is Celebrating
No groundbreaking judgment comes without controversy. And this one has its fair share of critics.
The Free Speech and Press Freedom Concerns
The most significant tension is between the Right to Be Forgotten and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), as well as freedom of the press.
Critics argue:
• Who decides what information is "relevant" or serves "legitimate public purpose"? — Giving courts this power could lead to censorship
• Journalists and news organizations have a right to report on court proceedings — De-indexing could effectively make important stories disappear from public view
• The public has a right to know about the functioning of the justice system — Even acquittals tell us something about how courts work, what evidence was considered, and how justice was delivered
• Search engines are being turned into arbiters of truth — Or worse, courts are deciding what search engines should show
Justice Datta addressed these concerns directly by emphasizing that:
• De-indexing is not deletion — The information still exists and is accessible through purposeful means
• Masking is not censorship — The substance of judgments remains fully available
• The framework includes absolute bars for certain categories of cases where public interest is paramount
The "Right to Information" Conflict
There's also a tension with India's Right to Information Act, 2005, which gives citizens the right to access information under the control of public authorities. If court records are public information, can individuals really claim a right to have them hidden from search?
The Delhi High Court's answer is nuanced: Accessibility does not mean unlimited searchability. There's a difference between a record being available to a motivated researcher and it being thrust into the face of every casual internet user.
The Implementation Challenge
Then there's the practical question: Will this actually work?
• Search engines operate globally — Can an Indian court really enforce de-indexing worldwide?
• Legal databases like Indian Kanoon are crucial for legal research — Will disabling name-based search make it harder for lawyers, judges, and researchers to find relevant precedents?
• Mirror sites and cached versions — Even if Google de-indexes, can the information still be found through other means?
• The "Streisand Effect" — Sometimes trying to hide information draws more attention to it
The court acknowledged these limitations, noting that it was not dealing with complete removal or takedown of judgments from legal databases — only with de-indexing from name-based search and restricting name-based search functionality. The Supreme Court is separately dealing with the larger question of takedowns of entire judgments.
What This Means for You: The Everyday Impact
Let's step back from the legal theory and talk about what this actually means for ordinary Indians.
If You've Been Acquitted
If you were accused of a crime and acquitted, you now have a clear path to seek:
• De-indexing of the judgment from Google and other search engines when someone searches your name
• Masking of your name in publicly accessible digital versions of the judgment
• Protection from having your digital identity permanently linked to an accusation that the court found baseless
This is huge for employment prospects, social relationships, mental health, and basic human dignity.
If You're in a Private Dispute
If you were party to a matrimonial dispute or other purely private civil matter, you can seek similar relief. The court recognized that there's no legitimate public interest in permanently searchable records of private family matters.
If Your Name Appears Incidentally
Even if you weren't a party to a case — maybe your name came up as a witness, or in some other capacity — you can seek masking if the continued association is causing you harm.
The Process
The judgment establishes that you can:
• Move an application before the concerned Court that rendered the original order or judgment
• The court will apply the proportionality test — weighing your privacy against public interest
• If relief is granted, the court's masking order triggers obligations for search engines and legal databases under the IT Rules, 2021
• Compliance must happen within two weeks
The Road Ahead: What Still Needs to Happen
This judgment is a massive step forward, but it's not the end of the story. Several things still need to happen:
The DPDP Act Needs to Come Into Force
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is still not operational. When it does come into force, it will provide a statutory framework for data protection, including limited erasure rights. But as critics have noted, the Act has substantial limitations and doesn't fully address the right to be forgotten in the context of judicial records and public information.
The Supreme Court Needs to Weigh In
The Supreme Court of India has not yet given a definitive ruling on the Right to Be Forgotten. The Delhi High Court's judgment will likely be challenged, and the apex court will have the final say. Given the divergence of views among High Courts — with the Madras High Court taking a more restrictive approach — Supreme Court clarity is essential.
Legal Databases Need to Adapt
Platforms like Indian Kanoon — which have been invaluable for democratizing access to legal information — will need to implement technical solutions for disabling name-based search while preserving other search functionalities. This requires both technological investment and careful calibration to ensure legal research isn't impeded.
Search Engines Need to Comply — Globally
Google and other search engines will need to implement global de-indexing for Indian court orders. This raises questions about how they balance different jurisdictions' demands — what if an Indian court orders de-indexing but a European court orders preservation? These cross-border conflicts are still being worked out globally.
Awareness Needs to Spread
Perhaps most importantly, ordinary Indians need to know this right exists. The awareness gap around digital rights in India is massive. Most people have no idea they can seek relief, let alone how to navigate the legal process to get it.
A Philosophical Reflection: What Kind of Digital Society Do We Want?
At its core, this judgment forces us to ask a profound question: What kind of digital society do we want to be?
Do we want a world where:
• A single Google search can permanently define a person — reducing their entire identity to their worst moment, their most vulnerable legal encounter, their darkest accusation?
• Algorithms have no concept of redemption — where an acquittal means nothing because the accusation still dominates?
• The permanence of digital memory overrides the human capacity for change — where people can never escape their past, no matter how legally or morally exonerated?
Or do we want a world where:
• Dignity is protected — where being cleared by a court actually means something in the digital realm?
• Proportionality is respected — where the accessibility of information matches its legitimate public purpose?
• Humans are allowed to be human — to make mistakes, to be falsely accused, to grow, to change, and to not be permanently haunted by ghosts that the legal system has already laid to rest?
Justice Datta's judgment is a vote for the second vision. It's a recognition that "open justice" doesn't mean "open season on individual dignity." It's an acknowledgment that the internet has fundamentally altered the calculus of privacy — what was once a temporary embarrassment in a newspaper archive is now a permanent, globally accessible, instantly retrievable digital scar.
The Final Word: A Victory for Constitutional Empathy
In his 144-page magnum opus, Justice Sachin Datta has given India something precious: a framework for digital dignity. He has recognized that in an age where "preservation is the norm and forgetting a struggle," constitutional courts must step in to protect the fundamental human need for redemption.
The judgment isn't perfect. The implementation challenges are real. The balance between privacy and free speech will continue to be contested. The Supreme Court may yet modify or overturn parts of it.
But for the 38 petitioners who have waited years — some since 2016 — for relief from the perpetual digital punishment of accusations they overcame in court, this judgment is nothing short of life-changing.
And for the thousands of Indians who will follow in their footsteps, it offers something that the internet has tried to deny them: the chance to be forgotten.
As the court eloquently put it: "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. Such would be contrary to the individual's right to privacy which includes the right to be forgotten, and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
In the end, the Delhi High Court hasn't just framed rules for the Right to Be Forgotten. It has framed rules for what it means to be human in the digital age — and that, perhaps, is its most enduring legacy.
(This article is based on the Delhi High Court's landmark judgment delivered by Justice Sachin Datta on May 29, 2026, in the matter of Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors, along with related petitions.)
COMMENTS