The Delhi High Court has affirmed the "right to be forgotten," ruling that search engines like Google must disable name-based searches for judicial records related to cases that are private or have concluded with acquittals, discharges,or settlements. This decision emerged from a series of petitions filed by individuals seeking to protect their reputations and privacy online .
In a detailed 144-page judgment,Justice Sachin Datta emphasized that while transparency is vital for judicial accountability,the ongoing association of a person's name with resolved judicial matters can cause undue harm to their dignity and privacy. court stated that the "right to be forgotten" is extension of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution, shielding individuals from constant exposure to irrelevant past events.
The court ordered that authorities, search engine operators, and legal database platforms must de-index and disable their name-based search functionalities concerning the judgments,orders,and news articles cited by the petitioners. However, the ruling also specified that de-indexing would not apply in cases involving convictions for serious offenses, particularly those against women and children, or where public trust is breached.
Among the petitioners were individuals who argued for the removal of their names from public digital records,citing the need for privacy after their cases were resolved . The court recognized that in instances such as acquittals or settlements,there is no legal basis for search engines to continue indexing these records in a way that infringes on personal privacy.
“No legitimate aim of sufficient specificity is served by the unlimited and unrestricted name-based searchability of records whose underlying proceedings have been resolved,” the court stated .
Despite granting relief to many petitioners, the court denied requests from certain public figures . For instance,P.P. Madhva,who sought de-indexing following a settlement in a sexual offense case, was refused relief due to public interest in such serious allegations. Similarly, reality show star Ashutosh Kaushik was denied his request to remove content related to his past drunken behavior, as the court ruled that the right to be forgotten does not allow for selective erasure of public figure's history.
The court further clarified that de-indexing could be warranted in cases where a party's death has rendered the information harmful to surviving family members. It also noted that right to informational privacy extends beyond territorial boundaries,meaning that de-indexing must be effective globally.
While ruling mandates that search engines comply within two weeks,it also affirms that court records will remain accessible through case numbers or citations, ensuring that the principle of open justice is upheld. The court pointed out that search engines are commercial entities that profit from user searches, and they are obligated to follow directives concerning removal or restriction of content.
In conclusion,the Union of India,Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,has been tasked with ensuring compliance with the court's directives, which aim to balance the right to privacy with the principles of transparency and accountability in the judicial system.
