What is the right to be forgotten?

Source: The post “What is the right to be forgotten? | Explained” has been created based on “What is the right to be forgotten?” published in “The Hindu” on 9th July 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS 2 – Polity & Governance

Context: The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is the right of an individual to have personal information erased or de-indexed from the public digital space when its continued availability causes harm and no longer serves a legitimate public interest. The recent Delhi High Court judgment (Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, 2026) has laid down a structured framework for balancing privacy with open justice and freedom of expression.

About the Right to be Forgotten

1. The Right to be Forgotten allows individuals to seek the removal or de-indexing of personal information from digital platforms when its continued accessibility violates their privacy and dignity.
2. The concept gained global recognition after the 2014 European Court of Justice judgment in the Mario Costeja González case, which later became part of Article 17 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Evolution in India

1. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, including the right to informational privacy.
2. Different High Courts adopted varying approaches regarding anonymisation and removal of personal information due to the absence of a uniform legal framework.
3. The recent Delhi High Court judgment attempts to provide such a framework.

Key Features of the Delhi High Court Judgment

1. The Court held that the Right to be Forgotten flows from Article 21, which guarantees dignity and informational privacy.
2. The Court introduced a proportionality test, requiring that retention of information must serve a legitimate purpose and that privacy harm must be balanced against public interest.
3. The Court preferred masking or redaction of parties’ names instead of deleting entire judicial records.
4. The Court directed legal databases to comply with such orders within two weeks.
5. The judgment clarified that judicial records would remain accessible through case numbers or keyword searches, while restricting name-based searches.

Significance of the Judgment

1. The judgment strengthens the constitutional right to privacy and protects individuals from long-term digital harm.
2. It balances privacy with the principles of open justice and freedom of speech.
3. It protects individuals who have been acquitted or whose disputes have been settled from continuing social stigma.
4. It establishes a structured legal framework for handling future RTBF cases.

Challenges

1. Balancing Fundamental Rights: The Right to be Forgotten may conflict with Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and the public’s right to know.
2. Enforcement Difficulties: Information may continue to appear through mirror websites, archives, cached pages, and social media despite court orders.
3. Search Engine Limitations: De-indexing removes search results but does not permanently erase the original content from the internet.
4. Inadequate Legal Framework: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 provides only a limited right to erasure based on consent and does not specifically address judicial records or public archives.
5. Institutional Gaps: The Data Protection Board is not fully operational, and the DPDP Rules are yet to be notified, limiting effective implementation.

Way Forward

1. A comprehensive legal framework should clearly define the scope and limits of the Right to be Forgotten.
2. The DPDP Act should be strengthened to explicitly cover judicial records and digital archives where appropriate.
3. The Data Protection Board should be made fully functional to ensure timely and transparent decision-making.
4. A tiered mechanism should be adopted, where routine requests are handled by digital platforms, disputed cases by the Data Protection Board, and judicial matters by courts.
5. Stronger coordination among courts, search engines, legal databases, and social media platforms should be established to ensure effective compliance.
6. The Supreme Court should provide authoritative guidelines to ensure uniform implementation across the country.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court judgment marks a significant step in protecting informational privacy while preserving open justice and freedom of expression. However, effective implementation will require a robust legal framework, operational institutions, technological cooperation, and clear judicial guidance to ensure that the Right to be Forgotten becomes a meaningful constitutional safeguard rather than merely a declaratory right.

Question: What is the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)? Discuss the recent Delhi High Court judgment on the Right to be Forgotten, its significance, challenges, and the way forward.

Source: The Hindu