Delhi HC to examine 'right to be forgotten' in judicial records: Balancing privacy and open justice
Contents4
Hindustan Times - India · 20 Aug 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance
The Delhi High Court will hear appeals by India Kanoon against a single judge order enforcing the 'right to be forgotten' in judicial records, raising critical questions about balancing privacy rights with principles of open justice and public access to legal information.
Key points
India Kanoon, a legal database platform, has challenged a single judge's May 29 order directing de-indexing of certain judicial records based on the 'right to be forgotten' principle.
The division bench questioned the order's impact on public access, noting that judicial records like the Harshad Mehta case should remain searchable by name for public interest.
Right to be forgotten conflicts with right to information and open justice principles, as the order effectively restricts access to public judicial records through name-based searches.
India Kanoon argues the order violates its Article 19 rights to freedom of trade and profession, while also creating arbitrary censorship standards for legal information.
[GS2-Polity] The case tests the limits of the Puttaswamy judgement on privacy, examining whether the 'right to be forgotten' extends to judicial records which are inherently public documents.
The single judge had created exceptions for cases involving crimes against women/children or public trust, showing the complex balancing required between privacy and public interest.
[GS3-Science and Technology] The technical aspect of de-indexing raises questions about search engine regulation and information architecture in the digital age.
The case highlights the tension between an individual's desire to erase litigation history and society's interest in maintaining transparent judicial records.
Way Forward: India needs a clear legislative framework defining the 'right to be forgotten' with specific exceptions for judicial records, establishing independent oversight for de-indexing requests, and ensuring any restrictions are narrowly tailored to protect both privacy and open justice principles.
Key terms
- Right to be forgotten
- A legal concept allowing individuals to request removal of personal information from internet searches and databases. While recognized in the EU's GDPR, its application in India remains contested, particularly regarding judicial records which are public documents essential for transparency and legal precedent.
- India Kanoon
- A free online legal research platform hosting Indian court judgments and legal documents. It plays a crucial role in democratizing access to legal information, recognized by the Supreme Court as supporting the constitutional right to access justice under Article 21.
- De-indexing
- The process of removing web pages from search engine results while keeping the content on the original website. In the legal context, it raises questions about information accessibility and the balance between privacy rights and public interest in judicial transparency.
- Puttaswamy judgement
- The landmark 2017 Supreme Court ruling (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) that recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. While it mentioned the 'right to be forgotten', it did not establish it as an absolute right, leaving scope for balancing with other rights like freedom of speech and information.
Practice question
The Delhi High Court's examination of the 'right to be forgotten' in judicial records highlights the tension between privacy rights and open justice. Critically analyze this conflict in the context of constitutional principles and public interest. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Right to be forgotten Puttaswamy judgement India Kanoon De-indexing Article 21 Article 19 Open justice Judicial transparency
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the concept of 'right to be forgotten' and its conflict with open justice, mentioning the Delhi HC case as a context.
Constitutional Principles
Right to Privacy (Article 21) as established in Puttaswamy judgement vs. Right to Information (Article 19(1)(a))
Balancing fundamental rights under Article 19 (freedom of trade) and Article 21 (privacy) with public interest
Public Interest and Judicial Transparency
Importance of open access to judicial records for legal precedent and transparency
Public interest in cases like Harshad Mehta scam vs individual's right to privacy
Technological and Practical Challenges
Issues with de-indexing and its impact on legal research platforms like India Kanoon
Global comparisons (EU's GDPR approach) and need for India-specific framework
Way Forward
Need for legislative clarity on scope of 'right to be forgotten'
Establishing clear exceptions for judicial records and independent oversight mechanisms
Conclusion
Suggest a balanced approach that protects privacy while preserving judicial transparency, possibly through narrowly tailored exceptions and clear guidelines.
Fact check
All facts verified