Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters, 2026:DHC:4891, decided by a single-judge Bench (Justice Sachin Datta) of the Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026, held that the Right to Be Forgotten is an essential facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, protectable through a proportionality standard. It is India's first comprehensive Right to Be Forgotten framework for judicial records and is tested in CLAT PG and Judiciary examinations.
Key Takeaways
- Right to Be Forgotten is a facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- De-indexing severs name-based search access; the underlying judgment is never deleted.
- Relief follows a proportionality test, not automatic masking, weighing privacy against public interest.
Case Fact Sheet
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Case name | Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters |
| Citation | 2026:DHC:4891 |
| Neutral citation | 2026:DHC:4891 |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Bench | Single-judge Bench |
| CJI-led | No |
| Judges | Justice Sachin Datta |
| Judgment date | 29 May 2026 |
| Disposal | Writ petitions allowed with directions; framework laid down |
| Key statutes | Article 21, Constitution of India; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; Information Technology Act, 2000 |
| Judgment importance | India's first comprehensive Right to Be Forgotten framework for judicial records |
Ratio in One Line
Ratio: Where no statute comprehensively codifies it, the Right to Be Forgotten is protectable as a facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and courts may direct de-indexing of judicial records from name-based searches on a case-by-case proportionality assessment without deleting the records themselves.
Statutes and Articles Invoked
| Statute / Article | Role in the Judgment |
|---|---|
| Article 21, Constitution of India | Source of informational privacy from which the Right to Be Forgotten is derived |
| Article 14, Constitution of India | Equality and non-arbitrariness frame for the balancing exercise |
| Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — Section 12(3) | Right to erasure of personal data; held not to comprehensively cover judicial records |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Statutory backdrop governing intermediaries and online data |
Who decided this case?
Answer: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891) was decided by a single-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Sachin Datta, who delivered the 144-page judgment on 29 May 2026. As a single-judge High Court decision, it binds the Delhi High Court subject to appeal and is persuasive on other High Courts.
| Role | Judge |
|---|---|
| Presiding (single judge) | Justice Sachin Datta |
How did the case reach the Delhi High Court?
Answer: The matter began with writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from 2016 onwards. The Delhi High Court consolidated more than 30 such petitions, led by W.P.(C) 1021/2016, because each raised the common question of removing name-based online access to judicial records.
| Stage | Forum | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Lead petition (2016) | Delhi High Court | Admitted; W.P.(C) 1021/2016 |
| Consolidation | Delhi High Court | 30+ connected matters batched together |
| Final | Delhi High Court | Allowed with directions; framework laid down (2026:DHC:4891) |
What are the facts in brief?
Answer: In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891), more than 30 petitioners who had been acquitted, had cases dismissed or settled, or were parties to matrimonial and private civil disputes found those proceedings surfacing whenever anyone searched their names online. They asked the Delhi High Court to de-index those records and mask their personal identifiers.
The petitions ran against two overlapping frameworks: Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the home of informational privacy, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which addresses erasure of personal data but does not expressly cover judicial records maintained by courts.
What were the issues before the court?
Answer: The Delhi High Court framed the issues around whether a Right to Be Forgotten exists for judicial records in India and, if so, how it should be enforced.
- Issue 1: Does the Right to Be Forgotten form part of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Issue 2: Does the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, comprehensively codify a Right to Be Forgotten for judicial records?
- Issue 3: What standard should govern requests to de-index or mask judicial records, and what directions should issue to search engines, legal databases, and the Government?
What did the court hold?
Answer: In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891), the single-judge Bench held, allowing the petitions with directions, that the Right to Be Forgotten is part of informational privacy under Article 21 and is enforceable through a proportionality-based de-indexing framework.
- Holding 1: The Right to Be Forgotten is an essential facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because indefinite online availability of judicial-proceeding data can harm reputation, employment, and personal life, especially for the acquitted.
- Holding 2: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, including the right to erasure in Section 12(3), does not comprehensively codify the Right to Be Forgotten for judicial records, so the gap is filled through Article 21.
- Holding 3: Masking is not automatic; each request is decided on a proportionality standard balancing individual privacy against public interest, judicial transparency, and the nature of the proceedings, with public officials and matters of public concern receiving less protection.
- Holding 4: Google must de-index the relevant judgments, orders, and associated reportage from name-based search results for the petitioners; Indian Kanoon must restrict name-based search for the petitioners' records while retaining access by case number, citation, court, and date; and MeitY must ensure intermediary compliance and file a compliance affidavit.
- Holding 5: Petitioners have liberty to additionally seek masking before the courts that originally rendered the concerned judgments and orders.
Why is the Right to Be Forgotten judgment a landmark?
Answer: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891) is a landmark because it is India's first comprehensive Right to Be Forgotten framework for judicial records. It translates the abstract informational-privacy recognition of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 into a workable de-indexing remedy, and it draws a precise constitutional line: de-indexing severs a name as a retrieval key without deleting the public record, preserving both privacy and open justice.
The Delhi High Court captured this distinction in its own words:
"What changes is only that the concerned name (whether an individual or an entity) ceases to function as an unlimited retrieval key that instantly and effortlessly surfaces the record for any casual internet user who happens to search that name."
— Delhi High Court, Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891)
Exam Angle
This case is essential for CLAT PG, Judiciary (Prelims and Mains), and UGC-NET Law (Constitutional Law and Information Technology Law).
Sample MCQ
In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891), the Delhi High Court grounded the Right to Be Forgotten primarily in which provision?
(a) Section 12(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (b) Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (c) Article 21 of the Constitution of India (d) Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
Answer: (c)
Sample descriptive question
"De-indexing is not deletion." Critically examine how the Delhi High Court reconciled the Right to Be Forgotten with the principle of open justice in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891), with reference to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. (Judiciary Mains, 15 marks)
Five facts to memorise
- Case: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters; Citation: 2026:DHC:4891.
- Bench: Single-judge Bench (Justice Sachin Datta); Date: 29 May 2026; Case number: W.P.(C) 1021/2016 & Connected Matters.
- Core holding: Right to Be Forgotten is a facet of informational privacy under Article 21, enforced via a proportionality-based de-indexing framework.
- Statutes interpreted: Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Section 12(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Foundational precedent: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (informational privacy under Article 21); downstream application by other High Courts and any Supreme Court review is yet to develop.
Syllabus mapping
| Exam | Where it appears |
|---|---|
| CLAT PG | Constitutional Law; emerging technology and privacy law |
| Judiciary Prelims | Fundamental Rights — right to privacy |
| Judiciary Mains | Constitutional Law — proportionality doctrine and Article 21 |
| AIBE | Constitutional Law; Cyber Law |
| UGC-NET Law | Paper II — Constitutional Law; Information Technology Law |
| UPSC Law Optional | Paper I — Fundamental Rights |
Related cases in the tech-data-law cluster
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — foundational authority recognising informational privacy under Article 21; relied on as the basis for the Right to Be Forgotten in this judgment.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Right to Be Forgotten as recognised in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India?
In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891), the Delhi High Court held that the Right to Be Forgotten is a facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As no statute comprehensively codifies it for judicial records, the Court derived it through Article 21, applying a proportionality standard.
Does de-indexing under this judgment delete the underlying court judgment?
No. The Delhi High Court was clear that de-indexing is not deletion. The judgment remains fully available on the court website and on legal databases through its case number, citation, court name, and date. Only the person's name stops functioning as a search retrieval key.
Does the DPDP Act, 2023 already provide a Right to Be Forgotten for court records?
No. The Delhi High Court held that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) does not comprehensively codify the right for judicial records. Section 12(3) gives a right to erasure of personal data held by Data Fiduciaries, but courts are not Data Fiduciaries in that sense, so the gap was filled through Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Who is less likely to get relief under the proportionality standard?
Public officials exercising public powers and persons connected to matters of public concern receive less protection in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891). Masking is not automatic; private criminal, matrimonial, and civil disputes of acquitted or non-public persons weigh more strongly in favour of de-indexing.
Is this Delhi High Court judgment binding on other High Courts?
No. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891) is a single-judge Delhi High Court judgment. It binds the Delhi High Court subject to appeal and is persuasive — not binding — on other High Courts. As India's first such framework, its influence elsewhere and any Supreme Court of India review are still to develop.
Which leading precedent did the Court rely on for informational privacy?
The Delhi High Court relied on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, in which a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India held that informational privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This judgment extends that foundation to de-indexing of judicial records.
Cross-references
- Practitioner guide: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India — Practitioner Guide — ratio decidendi, current statutory framework, and practice implications for criminal, matrimonial, and data-privacy counsel.
- Glossary: informational privacy; proportionality; right to erasure.
Source
This article is freshly researched from Veritect's Tier-1-sourced report of the actual judgment. The underlying decision is Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters, W.P.(C) 1021/2016 & Connected Matters, decided by the Delhi High Court (Justice Sachin Datta) on 29 May 2026, neutral citation 2026:DHC:4891, available from the Delhi High Court. Statutory text cross-referenced from India Code. This summary is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Beyond this brief Preview — access the full Veritect Legal AI platform
This summary covers the ratio, holdings, and exam angle of India's first Right to Be Forgotten framework for judicial records. The full Veritect Legal AI platform carries the complete proportionality-factor breakdown, the Article 21 privacy line of authority from K.S. Puttaswamy onwards, and the practitioner workflow for filing de-indexing and masking requests.