Introduction
In India, this question is increasingly connected with the Right to Be Forgotten, which concerns an individual’s ability to seek removal, restriction, masking or de-indexing of personal information from public digital access in appropriate circumstances. The right is closely connected with the constitutional right to privacy and dignity under Article 21.
What Is the Right to Be Forgotten?
The Right to Be Forgotten is broadly understood as the right of an individual to seek restriction of access to personal information that is no longer relevant, necessary or connected with a legitimate public purpose.
It does not necessarily mean that the original information has to be completely erased. In the digital context, relief may take different forms, including de-indexing a result from name-based searches, masking personal identifiers, restricting name-based searches or limiting the manner in which information is publicly accessible. This distinction is important because removing a person’s name from a search result is different from destroying the underlying judicial record.
How Is It Connected With Article 21?
Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 broadly to include rights connected with human dignity and privacy.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right and held that it is an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court also recognised the importance of informational privacy and individual control over personal information.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s opinion in Puttaswamy specifically discussed the idea of controlling one’s existence on the internet. The judgment also clarified that such a right cannot operate as a complete erasure of history and has to be balanced against freedom of expression, media freedom and legitimate public interests.
Therefore, the Right to Be Forgotten is not a separately worded fundamental right expressly mentioned in Article 21. Rather, it has developed as an aspect of informational privacy and dignity within the broader constitutional protection of Article 21.
What Did the Delhi High Court Say in 2026?
The issue received significant attention in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. and Connected Matters, decided by the Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026.
The petitions concerned judicial records and related material that remained accessible through internet searches. The petitioners sought relief against the continuing public accessibility of information connected with their names.
The Delhi High Court examined whether the constitutional protection of informational privacy under Article 21 could support requests for de-indexing and masking of judicial records. The Court held that the Right to Be Forgotten, understood as an individual’s right to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility where it is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose, flows from informational privacy under Article 21.
The judgment therefore provides an important judicial framework for understanding how privacy rights may operate in an environment where information can remain searchable long after the underlying dispute has ended.
Does This Mean Court Judgments Can Simply Be Deleted?
The Right to Be Forgotten does not mean that judicial history can simply be erased whenever a person makes a request.
The Delhi High Court’s approach distinguished between access to the underlying judicial record and its discoverability through a person’s name. In the directions issued in the case, relevant search engines were directed to de-index specified content from name-based search results, while Indian Kanoon was directed to restrict certain name-based searches while retaining access to the judgments and orders through information such as the case number, citation, court details and date.
This demonstrates why de-indexing is not the same as deletion. The information may continue to exist and remain accessible through other legitimate routes, while its immediate discoverability through a person’s name may be restricted.
Privacy vs The Right to Know
The Right to Be Forgotten also has to be balanced against other constitutional values. Judicial proceedings are connected with the principle of open justice, while the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) protects the publication and dissemination of information subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions.
The Delhi High Court therefore considered the competing interests of privacy, dignity and reputation alongside freedom of speech, freedom of the press, open justice and the public’s right to know.
This balance becomes particularly important when information concerns matters of genuine public interest. A person cannot automatically claim that every publicly available fact about their past must disappear merely because they would prefer it not to be searchable.
When Can the Right Become Relevant?
The right may become particularly relevant where continued digital accessibility creates a disproportionate impact on an individual’s privacy or dignity and the information has lost its legitimate public relevance.
For example, the issue can arise in cases involving acquittals, discharge, quashing of proceedings, settled private disputes, outdated personal information or situations where sensitive personal identifiers have been unnecessarily exposed online.
However, the existence of a past allegation or judicial proceeding alone does not automatically establish that the information has to be removed. The circumstances of each case, the nature of the information, the public interest involved and the competing rights have to be considered.
Is the Right to Be Forgotten Absolute?
The constitutional right to privacy itself is not absolute. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court explained that an interference with privacy has to satisfy constitutional requirements including legality, legitimate State aim and proportionality.
Similarly, the Right to Be Forgotten cannot become a mechanism for completely rewriting a person’s history or suppressing information that continues to have legitimate public significance.
The central question is therefore not simply whether a person wants information removed, but whether continued public accessibility of that information is justified when balanced against the individual’s privacy, dignity and other relevant rights.
The Digital Age and the Right to Start Again
The Right to Be Forgotten highlights a unique problem created by technology. A newspaper report from years ago may once have disappeared from everyday public attention. Today, the same information can remain one search away indefinitely.
The Supreme Court’s discussion in Puttaswamy recognised this difficulty, observing that people can change and reform while information on the internet can remain permanently accessible. At the same time, the Court cautioned that control over personal information cannot amount to a complete right to erase history.
The developing Indian jurisprudence therefore attempts to find a balance between two competing realities: the individual’s right to move forward and society’s legitimate interest in preserving and accessing information.
Conclusion
The Right to Be Forgotten under Article 21 represents an evolving aspect of India’s constitutional privacy jurisprudence. It recognises that privacy in the digital age is not limited to physical spaces or confidential information but can also involve control over how personal information remains publicly accessible online.
The 2026 Delhi High Court judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav adds significant judicial guidance by recognising the Right to Be Forgotten as a facet of informational privacy and considering practical remedies such as de-indexing and masking.
At the same time, the right does not provide an unrestricted power to erase the past. Its application requires a balance between privacy and dignity under Article 21 and competing interests such as freedom of expression, open justice and the public’s right to know.
As digital records become increasingly permanent, the legal question may no longer be only about what information can be published, but also about how long that information should remain immediately accessible and identifiable to the public.
