What Is the Right to Be Forgotten? Explained

WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN?

Syllabus:

GS 2:

• Indian Constitution.
• Fundamental Rights.
• Judgement and Cases.

 Why in the News?

The Delhi High Court, in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026), recognised the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) as part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21. The judgment laid down a framework for balancing informational privacy, open justice, and freedom of speech in the digital age.

WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN?

• Privacy Protection: The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) enables individuals to seek erasure or de-indexing of personal information when its continued public availability causes disproportionate harm.
• Digital Dignity: It seeks to protect an individual’s reputation, privacy, and human dignity by limiting unnecessary digital exposure.
• Not Absolute: The right does not mandate deletion of all information but requires balancing privacy with public interest and constitutional values.
• De-Indexing Approach: Courts generally prefer masking names or de-indexing search results rather than deleting judicial records entirely.
• Global Origin: The concept gained international recognition after the European Court of Justice’s Mario Costeja González judgment in 2014.

EVOLUTION OF RTBF IN INDIA

• Privacy Judgment: The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
• Informational Privacy: The judgment established that individuals possess constitutional protection over their personal data and digital identity.
• Divergent Approaches: Different High Courts adopted varying positions on requests for anonymisation and name masking.
• Need for Framework: Absence of uniform principles created uncertainty regarding balancing privacy and open justice.
• Judicial Development: The Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment provides a structured framework for applying the Right to be Forgotten.

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT (2026)

• Constitutional Recognition: The Court held that the Right to be Forgotten flows from Article 21, protecting dignity and informational privacy.
• Proportionality Test: Courts must balance privacy interests, public interest, and the legitimate purpose of retaining information.
• Least Restrictive Means: Masking names rather than deleting judgments entirely should ordinarily be preferred.
• Open Justice: Judicial records remain publicly accessible through case numbers or keywords, while restricting name-based searches.
• Time-Bound Compliance: Legal databases were directed to implement approved masking or de-indexing requests within prescribed timelines.

BALANCING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

• Privacy vs Free Speech: RTBF must be balanced against Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Open Justice Principle: Courts must preserve transparency while protecting individuals from disproportionate digital harm.
• Public Interest: Information involving serious crimes, public office, or overriding public interest may continue to remain publicly accessible.
• Right to Know: Society’s legitimate right to information remains an important constitutional consideration.
• Case-Specific Approach: Each request requires careful judicial balancing based on facts and competing constitutional rights.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

• Search Engine Persistence: Even after judicial orders, outdated information may continue appearing prominently in search engine results.
• Digital Replication: Archived websites, mirror platforms, and social media can continue circulating personal information.
• Technical Enforcement: Effective implementation requires coordination among search engines, digital platforms, and online databases.
• Institutional Capacity: Absence of specialised regulatory institutions delays effective enforcement of privacy rights.
• Global Jurisdiction: Cross-border digital platforms create additional challenges for enforcement across multiple jurisdictions.

DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (DPDP) ACT, 2023

• Limited Erasure Right: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 provides a limited statutory right to erasure of personal data.
• Consent-Based Framework: The Act primarily governs data processing based on consent rather than judicial records.
• Institutional Mechanism: It envisages establishment of a Data Protection Board for grievance redressal and regulatory oversight.
• Current Limitation: The Act does not comprehensively address judicial records, public archives, or search engine de-indexing.
• Implementation Gap: Effective functioning depends upon notification of rules and operationalisation of the Data Protection Board.

WAY FORWARD

• Institutional Strengthening: Operationalise the Data Protection Board for efficient handling of privacy-related grievances.
• Clear Guidelines: Develop uniform legal standards governing de-indexing, anonymisation, and erasure requests.
• Platform Accountability: Strengthen obligations on search engines and digital platforms to ensure timely compliance with judicial orders.
• Judicial Oversight: Adopt a tiered mechanism where complex disputes continue receiving independent judicial scrutiny.
• Privacy Awareness: Promote greater awareness regarding digital rights, data protection, and responsible online information management.

CONCLUSION

The Right to be Forgotten reflects the evolving constitutional understanding of privacy, human dignity, and digital autonomy in the information age. While the Delhi High Court has laid an important jurisprudential foundation, effective implementation will require stronger institutions, technological cooperation, and careful balancing between privacy, free speech, and open justice.

 SOURCE: The Hindu

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

“India–Japan relations have evolved from economic cooperation to a comprehensive strategic partnership with significant implications for the Indo-Pacific.” Examine the importance of the India–Japan partnership in promoting regional stability, economic resilience, and technological cooperation. (15 Marks, 250 Words)