The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan, held that the right to be forgotten forms an integral component of the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the removal of the petitioner's personal information from court records accessible online and from certain digital databases, where continued publication served no legitimate public interest.
Background
The petitioner, whose identity was protected by the Court, sought the removal of personal information from publicly accessible online databases and digitised court records. The petitioner contended that the continued availability of certain personal details in connection with past legal proceedings caused ongoing harm to reputation and dignity, despite the underlying matter having been resolved.
The question of a right to be forgotten in the Indian context has been evolving since the Supreme Court's recognition of informational privacy as a facet of Article 21 in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Several High Courts had previously considered similar requests, with the Karnataka High Court in Vasunathan v. Registrar General (2017) recognising a limited right to be forgotten in the context of matrimonial proceedings. However, the precise contours of this right, particularly in the digital age where court records are increasingly available through online portals, had remained unsettled.
Key Holdings
The Delhi High Court established the following principles:
Constitutional foundation: The right to be forgotten is rooted in the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not an absolute right but operates as a qualified right that must be balanced against competing interests, including the public's right to access judicial records.
Balancing framework: The Court articulated a proportionality test requiring courts to weigh the individual's privacy interest against the public interest in continued access. Relevant factors include the nature of the information, the time elapsed since the underlying proceedings, the severity of ongoing harm, and whether the information serves any continuing public purpose.
Removal directions: Where the continued publication of personal information in judicial records and online databases serves no legitimate purpose and causes disproportionate harm to the individual, courts may direct removal or redaction of such information.
Digital platform obligations: The judgment noted that digital platforms and database operators have obligations to comply with court-ordered removal of personal information, drawing upon the framework established under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment provides a structured framework for practitioners advising clients who seek removal of personal information from digital records. The proportionality test articulated by the Court offers concrete criteria for framing such applications, moving beyond the earlier ad hoc approach where outcomes depended heavily on individual judicial discretion.
For litigation practitioners, the decision raises important procedural considerations. Applications for the right to be forgotten will likely need to demonstrate specific, ongoing harm rather than mere discomfort with publicly available information. The passage of time since the original proceedings and the resolution of the underlying dispute will be significant factors.
The judgment also carries implications for legal database operators and court record digitisation initiatives, who must now account for the possibility of removal orders. As India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 framework develops further, the interplay between this constitutional right and statutory data protection provisions will require careful navigation.