How to Request De-Indexing of Court Records from Google Under the Right to Be Forgotten

Kaustav Chowdhury
4 hours ago
5 min read

On 29 May 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, holding that the right to be forgotten is a facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed Google and all other search engine operators to de-index name-based search results linked to judicial records in specified categories and directed Indian Kanoon to restrict name-based search functionality while preserving access through case numbers and citations. This guide explains how individuals can request de-indexing of court records following the Delhi High Court's landmark framework.

Step 1: Determine Whether Your Case Falls Within the Eligible Categories

The Delhi High Court identified specific categories of cases where de-indexing relief may be granted. Before filing any petition, assess whether your situation falls within these categories:

Acquittal, discharge, or quashing of criminal proceedings
Cases where proceedings have ended through settlement or compounding of offences
Matrimonial disputes and purely private civil proceedings that have concluded
Victims of sexual offences whose identity appears in published judicial records

The Court also identified categories where de-indexing relief would ordinarily be denied: convictions for offences against women or children, matters involving breach of public trust, and cases concerning the public conduct of public figures where overriding public interest justifies continued accessibility.

Step 2: Understand the Three Forms of Relief

The ruling distinguishes between three separate forms of relief, each serving a different purpose:

De-indexing: This prevents your name from appearing in search engine results linked to the court record. The judgment itself continues to exist on the court's website and legal databases, but it will not surface when someone searches your name on Google or other search engines.

Delinking: This removes the connection between your name and the specific URL hosting the court record in search engine indexes. The URL remains accessible directly, but the search engine will not associate it with your name.

Masking: This operates at the level of the court record itself. The court or its registry replaces a party's name with a neutral reference (such as initials or 'X') in the publicly accessible digital version of a judgment, while preserving the unredacted version in the court's internal records. The right to privacy under Article 21 has been affirmed across multiple High Courts as the constitutional foundation for these reliefs.

Step 3: File a Writ Petition Before the High Court

Currently, there is no statutory right to be forgotten under Indian legislation. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) contains provisions on data erasure, but these rights are being operationalised in phases and are not yet fully in force. Until the statutory framework is fully operational, the judicial route remains the primary mechanism.

File a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court with territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The petition should include the full case details of the proceedings for which de-indexing is sought, a certified copy of the final order (acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement), evidence showing that name-based searches on Google or other search engines return the court record, evidence of harm caused by continued online accessibility (such as employment rejection, social stigma, or reputational damage), and the specific relief sought (de-indexing, delinking, masking, or a combination). When building arguments around data protection obligations, petitioners can reference the DPDPA framework even though its provisions are not yet fully enforceable.

Step 4: Obtain the Court Order

If the High Court grants relief, the order will specify the exact scope of the de-indexing, the platforms that must comply (typically Google and all other search engine operators), the URLs or search terms to be de-indexed, and a compliance timeline (the Delhi High Court directed compliance within two weeks in the Laksh Vir Singh Yadav case). The court may also direct legal databases such as Indian Kanoon to restrict name-based search functionality for the identified records while preserving access through case numbers, citations, court details, and dates.

Step 5: Submit the Court Order to Google for De-Indexing

Once the court order is in hand, submit it to Google through the Legal Removal Requests page at support.google.com/legal. Select 'Submit a Legal Request,' then choose 'Web Search.' Upload the exact URLs to be de-indexed, a copy of the signed court order, a description of the content to be removed, and proof of identity of the petitioner. Google typically processes legally valid court orders within a few weeks and de-indexes the specified URLs globally. Using the wrong submission form (such as the spam report form) will result in the request being ignored without notification. For other search engines, use their respective legal removal request processes.

Step 6: Request Masking from the Original Court

If the High Court grants masking relief in addition to de-indexing, file a separate application before the court that originally rendered the judgment. The application should reference the High Court's de-indexing order and request that the registry replace names with neutral identifiers in the digital version of the judgment. Unredacted versions will continue to be maintained in internal court records. The balance between privacy and defamation rights has been examined by the Supreme Court and provides additional constitutional support for masking applications.

Step 7: Monitor Compliance and Enforce the Order

After submitting the court order to Google and other platforms, verify compliance by conducting name-based searches after the directed timeline expires. If the content remains indexed, file a contempt petition before the High Court that issued the original order. Keep records of screenshots showing non-compliance, as this evidence will support any enforcement application. Note that de-indexing and delinking do not erase the judicial record. The unredacted judgment remains accessible through case number searches, court websites, and internal records.

Key Takeaways

The Delhi High Court ruled on 29 May 2026 that the right to be forgotten is a facet of Article 21 privacy and established a framework for de-indexing court records.
Eligible categories include acquittals, settlements, concluded matrimonial disputes, and sexual offence victim records.
Relief is available in three forms: de-indexing (search engines), delinking (URL-name association), and masking (court records).
File a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court, then submit the court order to Google via support.google.com/legal.
De-indexing does not erase the judicial record; unredacted judgments remain accessible via case numbers and citations.

The Laksh Vir Singh Yadav framework represents a significant step in Indian privacy law, giving individuals a practical mechanism to limit the ongoing reputational impact of outdated or resolved legal proceedings. Timely filing, proper documentation of harm, and correct use of Google's legal removal process are essential for a successful outcome.