Right to be Forgotten: Delhi High Court Lays Down Landmark Framework

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court, in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026), laid down a landmark framework governing the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) in India. The Court held that the right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, balancing an individual's right to privacy with the principle of open justice.

What is the Right to be Forgotten?

• • • The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) enables individuals to seek the removal, erasure, or de-indexing of their personal information from digital platforms and search engines when its continued online availability causes disproportionate harm and no longer serves a legitimate public interest.
    • It is particularly relevant in cases involving acquittals, false accusations, matrimonial disputes, or incidental mentions in legal proceedings.

Background:

• • • The concept gained international recognition in 2014, when the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mario Costeja González, directing Google to remove links to outdated personal information.
    • The right was later codified under Article 17 of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
    • In India, its constitutional foundation was laid by the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment, which recognised privacy, including informational privacy, as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Delhi High Court Judgment:

• • • In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026), the Court held that the Right to be Forgotten is an integral part of the right to dignity and informational privacy under Article 21. It clarified that the right may also operate against private digital platforms and search engines.
    • The Court introduced a Structured Proportionality Test, requiring authorities to balance the individual's privacy and dignity against the public's right to know, the principle of open justice, and legitimate public interest before granting relief.

Need for the Right to be Forgotten:

The Court observed that digital permanence can unfairly damage the reputation of individuals long after acquittal or closure of legal proceedings. Victims of false allegations, persons involved in private matrimonial disputes, and individuals incidentally mentioned in court cases often continue to face social stigma due to searchable online records.

RTBF seeks to protect such individuals from perpetual reputational harm while preserving transparency where genuine public interest exists.

Way Forward:

• • • The government should operationalise the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 by notifying its rules and establishing the Data Protection Board to efficiently handle erasure requests.
    • A tiered grievance mechanism involving digital platforms, the Data Protection Board, and judicial review can ensure speedy and balanced decision-making. Search engines and legal databases should also update records to reflect acquittals or subsequent developments rather than merely retaining outdated information.
    • A definitive ruling by the Supreme Court will be essential to establish a uniform national standard balancing privacy with transparency.

Conclusion:

The judgment marks a significant evolution of India's privacy jurisprudence by recognising that individuals should not remain indefinitely burdened by outdated digital records. By adopting a balanced approach based on proportionality instead of blanket deletion, the Court has attempted to reconcile privacy, dignity, freedom of expression, and the principle of open justice in the digital age.