The Right to Be Forgotten — Delhi High Court Judgment, 2026

What constitutional right did the Delhi High Court recognise as the basis of the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF)?

The Right to Be Forgotten flows from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

What does the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) broadly allow an individual to seek?

It allows an individual to seek removal or de-indexing of personal information from public digital accessibility when its continued availability is outdated, irrelevant, harmful, or no longer justified by a legitimate purpose.

Who delivered the Delhi High Court's 2026 judgment on the Right to Be Forgotten?

Justice Sachin Datta delivered the 144-page judgment on 29 May 2026.

How many petitions were dealt with in the Delhi High Court's 2026 RTBF judgment?

The judgment dealt with a batch of over 30 petitions concerning the continued online availability and searchability of judicial records.

What was the common grievance raised by petitioners in the Delhi High Court RTBF cases?

Petitioners argued that continued name-based searchability of judicial records caused disproportionate and continuing harm to their reputation, dignity and life prospects.

What kinds of petitioners were represented in the Delhi High Court RTBF batch?

The petitioners included persons acquitted of criminal charges, persons whose proceedings had been quashed or settled, parties to matrimonial disputes, persons whose cases had concluded, and individuals whose names appeared only incidentally in judicial records.

What did the Delhi High Court direct search engines such as Google to do?

It directed authorities, search engine operators and legal databases to de-index specified judicial records and disable name-based search functionality relating to those records.

Did the Delhi High Court's de-indexing directions operate only within India?

No. The Court directed that the de-indexing directions operate globally, extending beyond India's territorial jurisdiction.

Does the Right to Be Forgotten mean that the underlying judicial record itself must always be erased?

No. The Court distinguished de-indexing or masking from complete deletion or expungement of the underlying judicial record.

What is the distinction between de-indexing and complete deletion under the Delhi High Court framework?

De-indexing removes a specified record from name-based search results, while the underlying judicial record may remain available for legitimate legal and institutional purposes.

Can personal identifiers in publicly accessible judgments be masked under the RTBF framework?

Yes. Personal identifiers may be masked in publicly accessible versions of judgments where appropriate, while the legal reasoning, findings and conclusions remain intact.

Why did the Court distinguish masking from destruction of judicial records?

Because legitimate legal purposes may require preservation of the underlying record; the RTBF concerns control over public accessibility and identification rather than destruction of judicial history.

What principle of justice had to be balanced against the RTBF?

The principle of open justice had to be balanced against personal dignity, privacy and the continuing harm caused by unrestricted digital searchability.

What does the principle of open justice require?

Open justice requires judicial proceedings and records to remain accessible as an important safeguard of transparency and accountability in the justice system.

Does open justice require every individual's name in a judicial record to remain permanently searchable through commercial search engines?

No. The Court held that open justice does not necessarily require private individuals to remain permanently retrievable through commercial search engines.

Why did the Court say unrestricted name-based searchability could conflict with open justice?

Because institutional transparency can be preserved without making a private individual's name permanently and indiscriminately searchable across the open internet.

What constitutional provision was specifically used by the Delhi High Court to anchor the RTBF?

Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty and has been interpreted to include the right to privacy.

Does India currently have a comprehensive statute specifically governing the Right to Be Forgotten?

No. The Court noted that India lacks a comprehensive statutory framework expressly governing the RTBF, but held that the absence of legislation does not prevent constitutional courts from recognising and enforcing the right.

What was the significance of the Puttaswamy judgment for the RTBF?

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, providing the constitutional foundation from which the RTBF can be derived.

What did the Supreme Court say about the RTBF in relation to Puttaswamy?

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the RTBF may flow from privacy but clarified that it is not an absolute right and must be balanced against competing interests.

What was the first major international case associated with the Right to Be Forgotten?

Mario Costeja González v. Google Spain, decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2014, was the landmark case establishing the RTBF in international jurisprudence.

What happened in Mario Costeja González's case?

Mario Costeja González, a Spanish national, complained that an old newspaper notice concerning his financial difficulties and property auction remained searchable under his name on Google even though the matter was long past.

What did the CJEU hold in Google Spain in 2014?

The CJEU held that search engines could be required, upon request, to remove links to information that was no longer relevant, adequate or necessary in light of the passage of time.

What is the European Union's statutory recognition of the Right to Be Forgotten?

The RTBF is expressly recognised as the right to erasure under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Which regulation contains Article 17 recognising the right to erasure?

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union contains Article 17, which recognises the right to erasure, commonly associated with the Right to Be Forgotten.

Which countries were mentioned as adopting comparable protections for removal of personal data?

Canada, the United Kingdom, Argentina and Japan were identified as countries adopting comparable protections for removal of personal data from digital platforms.

What important Canadian development concerning the RTBF occurred in 2023?

In 2023, a Canadian court upheld the right to demand search blocks concerning personal data.

What is California's Online Eraser Law?

California's 2015 Online Eraser Law allows minors to request removal of information they have posted online.

What is the US DELETE Act of 2023?

The US DELETE Act of 2023 extended deletion rights to adults and permits individuals to request deletion of personal information collected by data brokers.

What did the Delhi High Court say about people who had been acquitted, discharged or whose cases had been quashed?

It held that such persons may be entitled to have their legal identity and online persona protected from continuing association with concluded criminal proceedings.

Why can continued association with a concluded criminal proceeding be problematic for an acquitted person?

It can unfairly preserve the stigma of an accusation even after acquittal, discharge or quashing and may harm reputation, dignity, employment and other life prospects.

Were people whose names appeared only incidentally in judicial records covered by the RTBF framework?

Yes. Individuals whose names appeared incidentally, without being primary parties to the proceedings, could also fall within the scope of eligible applicants.

What categories of cases were specifically mentioned as potentially eligible for RTBF relief?

Acquittals, discharges, quashed proceedings, settled matrimonial disputes and cases involving persons whose names appeared only incidentally in judicial records were identified as potentially eligible.

In what kinds of cases may RTBF relief be denied even after acquittal?

Relief may be denied where the case involved conviction for offences against women or children, or offences constituting a breach of public trust.

Which categories of public-trust offenders may be denied RTBF relief?

Public servants, elected representatives and persons holding fiduciary positions may be denied relief where the conviction concerns breach of public trust.

Why may the RTBF be restricted for offences against women or children?

The public interest in preserving information concerning such serious offences can outweigh an individual's privacy and reputation interests.

What did the Court say about persons convicted of offences involving breach of public trust?

It indicated that RTBF relief may be denied because public accountability and institutional trust make continued accessibility particularly important.

What framework did the Delhi High Court create for de-indexing?

The Court laid down a framework requiring authorities, search engines, legal databases and other intermediaries to de-index specified judgments, orders and related news reports from name-based search results.

What additional direction was given to search engines regarding specified judicial records?

Search engines were directed to disable name-based search functionality in relation to the specified records.

Why were global directions considered necessary?

The Court considered global operation necessary because internet searchability is not confined to India's territorial jurisdiction and information can remain accessible through searches conducted outside India.

What did the Court require authorities and intermediaries to preserve despite de-indexing?

They were required to preserve the underlying legal reasoning, findings and conclusions and, where necessary, the unredacted records for legitimate legal purposes.

What is the role of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in India's RTBF framework?

The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises a right relating to erasure of personal data, although its application to court records and the precise scope of RTBF also depend on judicial interpretation and the statutory framework.

What do the Information Technology Rules, 2021 require intermediaries to do concerning privacy-violating content?

The IT Rules require intermediaries to remove or disable access to certain privacy-violating content within the prescribed period after a valid complaint, including the 24-hour framework applicable to specified categories.

Which earlier Indian case discussed the “right to be let alone” while distinguishing it from publication of public records?

Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) discussed the “right to be let alone” but distinguished it from legitimate publication of public records such as court decisions.

Which Gujarat High Court case in 2017 dealt with removal of acquittal details from public records?

Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat (2017) involved a request to remove details of an acquittal from public records; the Gujarat High Court denied the request.

What did the Orissa High Court say about the RTBF in a 2020 revenge-pornography case?

In 2020, the Orissa High Court emphasised the need for an effective RTBF framework in a criminal case involving revenge pornography and noted that implementation presents complex issues requiring clear boundaries and redressal mechanisms.

What did the Delhi High Court decide regarding RTBF in a 2021 criminal case?

In 2021, the Delhi High Court directed removal of case details from search results to protect the privacy interests of a person in a criminal case, particularly in relation to social and career prospects.

What did the Supreme Court direct in July 2022 regarding search-engine removal of personal details?

The Supreme Court directed its registry to create a mechanism for removing personal details of an individual involved in a contentious marital dispute from search engines, broadening judicial recognition of the RTBF.

What did the Kerala High Court hold in December 2023 about applying RTBF to ongoing proceedings?

The Kerala High Court ruled that the RTBF cannot ordinarily be applied to ongoing court proceedings, emphasising open justice and public-interest concerns while recognising that legislative clarity may be required.

What happened in the Himachal Pradesh High Court's July 2024 RTBF decision?

The Court directed redaction of the names of both the accused and the victim in a rape case after acquittal, holding that an acquitted person should not continue to carry the stigma of the accusation in the digital public sphere.

What was the major significance of the Delhi High Court's May 2026 judgment?

It established a comprehensive judicial framework for RTBF, anchored the right in Article 21, mandated de-indexing and name-based search restrictions in appropriate cases, and issued globally operative directions to search engines and legal databases.