Delhi High Court Recognises Right to Be Forgotten Under Article 21: Framework for De-Indexing Judicial Records

The Delhi High Court has recognised the right to be forgotten as a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a detailed judgment delivered on 29 May 2026, Justice Sachin Datta laid down a framework governing when courts may order de-indexing, delinking and masking of personal information in judicial records that are available online, while balancing that right against open justice and the public's right to know.

The judgment responds to a growing modern problem: court records that were always public on paper are now instantly searchable online, so that a name once associated with a case can follow a person indefinitely through search engines, long after the matter has ended.

What the Court Decided

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by individuals who had been acquitted or discharged, were parties to matrimonial disputes, or whose names appeared incidentally in judgments, and who sought removal of links, masking of their identities, or de-indexing of records from internet search results.

The Court held that the right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility, where such information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose, flows from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21. It located this right within the privacy jurisprudence that treats control over one's personal information as part of the right to life and personal liberty.

The recognition builds on the constitutional position that privacy, including informational privacy, is protected as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The Court treated the ability to seek limits on the indefinite online availability of one's personal information as a natural extension of that protection, rather than as a wholly new right.

De-Indexing Versus Deletion

A central distinction in the judgment is between de-indexing and deletion. De-indexing merely removes a webpage or record from name based search results while preserving the underlying source material. The judgment, reported to run to 144 pages, explains that this approach protects an individual from being permanently defined by old records, without erasing the judicial record itself or rewriting history.

This middle path matters because open justice requires that judgments remain accessible. By focusing on search visibility rather than deletion, the Court sought to reconcile an individual's interest in moving on with the system's interest in a transparent and intact record. Relief such as masking of names or delinking from search engines is to be tailored to the facts rather than applied automatically.

The Limits and Balancing Test

The right is not absolute. Any claim for de-indexing or masking must be balanced against competing constitutional values, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the principle of open justice and the public's right to know. Each request is to be examined case by case.

The Court indicated that de-indexing would ordinarily not apply in cases involving offences against women or children, breach of public trust, or offences by public servants and elected representatives, where continued public access serves a legitimate purpose. The framework thus protects genuine privacy interests while preserving accountability where the public has a real stake in the information.

How It Fits With Data Protection Law

The recognition of a right to be forgotten under Article 21 sits alongside India's evolving statutory data protection regime, which also gives individuals certain rights over their personal data. The constitutional route addresses information held in judicial records and search results, an area not fully covered by ordinary data protection mechanisms, and gives courts a structured way to grant relief.

Individuals seeking relief will ordinarily need to approach the court or the appropriate forum with specifics: the record or link in question, the reason it no longer serves a legitimate public purpose, and the harm caused by its continued visibility. Because the relief is discretionary, a carefully framed request that respects the open justice exceptions has a better prospect of success.

Key Takeaways

The decision gives a clearer route for individuals haunted by old case records that surface in search results long after a matter has ended, particularly after an acquittal, discharge or settlement. Relief is discretionary and fact specific, and an applicant must show that the information no longer serves a legitimate public purpose.

The framework is an important step in the developing law of digital privacy in India, balancing the dignity and reputation of the individual against open justice and free expression, and it will shape how courts and intermediaries handle de-indexing requests going forward.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers facing a specific situation should consult a qualified advocate.