Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is the right of an individual to request the erasure or delinking of personal data that is no longer necessary, is inaccurate, was processed without consent, or serves no legitimate public interest, enabling control over one's digital footprint and online reputation. Under Indian law, it is recognised as a subset of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 following K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, and is partially codified through the data erasure provisions under Section 12(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Legal definition
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not use the term "right to be forgotten" expressly but provides for data erasure:
Section 12(3): Where a Data Principal withdraws consent for the processing of personal data, or the specified purpose for which consent was given is no longer being served, the Data Fiduciary shall, unless retention is required under any law, erase the personal data within such time as may be prescribed.
The DPDP Rules, 2025 prescribe that upon withdrawal of consent or cessation of purpose, the data fiduciary must erase the personal data within a reasonable period, unless retention is required for compliance with legal obligations, dispute resolution, or archival purposes in the public interest.
The broader "right to be forgotten" — encompassing the right to request removal of lawfully published information from search results or online platforms — is not explicitly codified in the DPDP Act. However, it has been judicially recognised as a component of informational privacy under Article 21.
How courts have interpreted this term
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in a separate but concurring opinion, explicitly recognised the right to be forgotten as part of the right to privacy. Justice Kaul observed that the right to be forgotten allows individuals to request removal of personal information from publicly available sources when it is no longer relevant, necessary, or accurate. The Court noted that this right must be balanced against freedom of speech and the public's right to information.
Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd. [(2019) — Delhi High Court]
The Delhi High Court recognised the right to be forgotten in the context of an application seeking removal of news articles containing allegations of sexual harassment that the applicant claimed were false and defamatory. The Court observed that the right to be forgotten is an element of the right to privacy under Article 21 and that individuals have a legitimate interest in controlling obsolete or inaccurate information about themselves. The Court directed the online platforms to redact the applicant's name from the articles.
Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India [(2021) — Delhi High Court]
The Delhi High Court issued one of the most detailed orders on the right to be forgotten in India, directing Google and other search engines to delink search results relating to an American citizen of Indian origin who had been acquitted in a criminal case. The Court held that continued availability of information about a criminal case in which the petitioner was acquitted violated his right to privacy and dignity, and that the right to be forgotten should be available to persons who have been acquitted or discharged.
Why this matters
The right to be forgotten addresses a fundamental tension of the digital age — the internet's permanent memory versus an individual's right to move on from past events. In India, this tension manifests in several common scenarios: acquitted accused whose criminal cases remain searchable online; individuals whose personal information appears in court orders available on legal databases; survivors of sensitive events whose names appear in news archives; and persons whose outdated or inaccurate professional information affects their reputation.
For individuals, the right to be forgotten is currently enforced primarily through High Court orders on a case-by-case basis. The DPDP Act provides a statutory right to erasure when consent is withdrawn or the purpose is fulfilled, but the broader right to have lawfully published information removed from search results or platforms remains judicially governed. Applicants must demonstrate that the information is no longer relevant, serves no public interest, and that its continued availability causes disproportionate harm to their privacy.
For data fiduciaries and online platforms, the erasure obligation under the DPDP Act is clear — personal data must be erased when consent is withdrawn or the specified purpose ceases. However, the right to be forgotten as applied to journalistic content, court records, and public interest information remains contested. Courts have balanced the individual's privacy against press freedom, public interest, and the right to information.
For legal practitioners, right to be forgotten cases require careful balancing of competing fundamental rights. The strongest cases involve acquittal in criminal proceedings, outdated personal information, demonstrably inaccurate content, and situations where continued publication serves no legitimate public purpose.
Related terms
Parent framework:
Related concepts:
Related institution:
Frequently asked questions
Is the right to be forgotten legally recognised in India?
Yes, but partially. The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (2017) recognised it as part of the right to privacy under Article 21. High Courts in Delhi have ordered delinking of search results and redaction of names in specific cases. The DPDP Act, 2023 provides a statutory right to data erasure when consent is withdrawn. However, a comprehensive right to be forgotten (similar to the EU's GDPR Article 17) is not yet fully codified in Indian law.
Can I get news articles about me removed from the internet?
Courts have ordered removal or redaction in cases involving acquitted accused, false allegations, and demonstrably inaccurate information. However, this is not automatic — you must file a court application demonstrating that the information serves no public interest, is outdated or inaccurate, and causes disproportionate harm to your privacy. Legitimate news reporting on matters of public interest is protected by freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
How does the DPDP Act handle data erasure?
Under Section 12(3), when a data principal withdraws consent or the specified purpose for processing ceases, the data fiduciary must erase the personal data within the prescribed time. Exceptions exist for data retained under legal obligations, ongoing disputes, and archival purposes. The right applies to personal data processed with consent — not to data processed under other lawful bases such as voluntary provision by the data principal.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.