The Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark ruling, recognising the 'right to be forgotten' as an integral facet of the right to privacy. The court stated that individuals cannot be condemned to suffer harm to their reputation merely because information about them remains indefinitely available in the digital domain.
Key Ruling on Search Engines
The High Court declared that search engines such as Google cannot be perpetually permitted to show judicial records in name-based searches for cases that are private in nature or have ended in acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement. It emphasised that continued association of a person's name with allegations in the digital space may inflict disproportionate harm on dignity and reputation. The 'shadow of crime' should not be allowed to replace the 'shadow of dignity' after the legal process has vindicated a person.
Constitutional Basis
Justice Sachin Dutta, in an order passed last week and made available now, observed: 'The right to be forgotten, understood as subsuming 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 purpose, flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21.' The court granted relief to a batch of petitioners and directed authorities, search engine operators, and legal database platforms to de-index and disable their 'name-based search functionality' in respect of judgments, orders, and news articles concerning those who had a favourable end to court proceedings.
Limitations and Exceptions
The court noted that informational privacy means the right of a person to decide what information about them is disclosed, to whom, and for what purpose. However, Justice Dutta made it clear that de-indexing would not apply in cases involving convictions for offences against women or children, offences involving breach of public trust, or cases involving public servants and elected representatives. The verdict, delivered on a batch of more than 30 petitions, made a distinction in certain cases. The court refused relief to PP Madhva, who sought de-indexing after a settlement in a sexual offence case, holding that there was a continuing public interest in the accessibility of proceedings touching upon serious allegations against a public figure. Similarly, it declined relief to reality show celebrity Ashutosh Kaushik, who sought removal of posts, videos, and articles depicting incidents of drunken behaviour, stating that the 'right to be forgotten' is not a mechanism for the 'selective erasure' of a public figure's past conduct.
Global Application and Compliance
The High Court also observed that since the fundamental right to informational privacy is not limited by territory, de-indexing must operate globally. It noted that search engines are commercial platforms that generate revenue through user searches and that IT rules oblige intermediaries to comply with orders directing removal or restriction of content. The court directed Google and other search engine operators to de-index relevant content where relief had been granted and asked the Centre, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, to ensure compliance within two weeks.
