In today’s digital age, almost everyone leaves behind a permanent trail of personal data: old social media posts, news articles, court records, even family photos. For some people, this “digital footprint” can be a curse. A decade-old mistake or misfortune can haunt job prospects or reputation every time someone Googles a name. In India, actors, bureaucrats, and ordinary citizens have begun asking courts to scrub their names and stories from the internet. For example, a very famous television personality petitioned the Delhi High Court to remove 20 online news reports about a 2011 drink-driving arrest, arguing that this “minor” incident still looms over his life. Such cases highlight the idea of a “right to be forgotten” the power to erase outdated or harmful personal information from public view, balanced against society’s interest in the free flow of information.
What Is the Right to Be Forgotten?
Broadly speaking, the “right to be forgotten” means that a person can seek removal of their personal data from internet indexes, archives or databases when that information is no longer relevant or is unduly harmful. In practice, this right was first recognised in Europe (under the EU’s GDPR, as a “right to erasure”) and has spread to places like Argentina. In India there is no stand alone “right to be forgotten” statute yet. Instead, it has been treated as an aspect of informational privacy–the idea that individuals have a fundamental right to control their personal data under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Liberty). In the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case, India’s Supreme Court unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right. While the Court did not specifically order the deletion of any data in Puttaswamy, justices acknowledged that privacy includes the power to control personal information. As one judgment noted, freedom from being perpetually “haunted by the remnants of … accusations” is part of living with dignity under Article 21. On this basis, many courts now view the right to be forgotten as a sub‐set of the right to privacy.
Put simply, under Indian law the right to be forgotten means you can ask to have personal data about yourself erased when it serves no legitimate purpose or causes unjustified harm. This is not an automatic erasure of all past information, but rather a request that parties delete or de list particular content. For example, if old news articles or court records are being routinely surfaced by search engines when someone enters your name, you might ask the publisher or search engine to remove or anonymize that content. Courts have emphasised that such removal should be granted only when the information is truly obsolete or overly injurious, and after balancing it against the public interest in that information. In other words, the Indian right to be forgotten is best understood as a modest privacy remedy still emerging from case law, not an unfettered power to rewrite history.
How Courts Have Treated the Right to Be Forgotten
With no dedicated law on point, Indian courts have tackled right to be forgotten claims on a case‐by‐case basis. A few trends have emerged:
- Supreme Court (2017): In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court affirmed that “informational privacy” is integral to Article 21. While the Court did not explicitly mention the “right to be forgotten” in its orders, it observed that the Constitution protects the individual’s right to control personal data and to be left alone from unwarranted public exposure. This set the stage for lower courts to read a limited erasure right into privacy.
- Karnataka High Court (2017): In Sri Vasunathan v. Registrar, a father sought to block his adult daughter’s name from appearing in a past criminal order that was online. The court agreed, recognizing that in “sensitive” cases involving women’s modesty it was in line with Western trends to allow erasure of identifying information. The court directed its registry to ensure that internet searches would not show the daughter’s name in the online records.
- Kerala High Court (2017 & 2022): The Kerala HC has given mixed signals. In 2017, it ordered the removal of a petitioner’s identity from an online legal database to protect privacy. However, in a 2022 case the Kerala court held that the open court principle limits privacy protections. It declared that in ongoing public cases one cannot hide personal information merely on privacy grounds, and that only the Legislature can define the scope of any right to be forgotten.
- Gujarat High Court (2017): The Gujarat HC took the opposite view in Dharmaraj B. Dave v. State of Gujarat. There the petitioner sought removal of a non‐reportable appeal judgment from Google and IndianKanoon. The court refused. It held that a judgment is part of court proceedings, and simply publishing it on a website does not make it “reported” in the legal sense. Critically, the court found no legal basis to delete the judgment and held that its presence on the internet did not violate Article 21.
- Orissa High Court (2020): In a case involving revenge-porn images, the Orissa HC underscored the need for a right to be forgotten. The court lamented that Indian law has no remedy for victims who want explicit photos erased from social media. Justice Panigrahi observed that RTBF is not explicitly provided by law today, though it could be seen as “yet another facet” of Article 21. The Orissa court thus refused bail to the accused (so the victim’s photos could not become public) and asked for legislative action on erasure rights.
- • Delhi High Court (2024): In January 2024, a man sought removal of his name from a 2015 criminal case judgment after being discharged. The court allowed redaction of his name from online versions and directed search engines to de-index the judgment. However, such directions to foreign platforms like Google are not directly enforceable unless routed through local entities (e.g., Google India) or backed by governmental enforcement. Indian courts typically lack jurisdiction over foreign tech firms, and compliance is often voluntary unless there’s a legal mandate or demonstrable privacy harm. This case remains one of the few instances in India where RTBF was judicially enforced post-acquittal.
- Supreme Court Stay (2024): The right to be forgotten remains unsettled at the national level. In July 2024, the Supreme Court stayed a controversial Madras High Court order (Feb 2024) that had directed IndianKanoon to delete a 2011 rape-case judgment after the accused was acquitted. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud clarified that once a court judgment is delivered, it enters the public domain and becomes part of the permanent legal record. While redaction or anonymization of names may be appropriate in certain sensitive cases, he cautioned that requiring removal of entire judgments from online platforms is “far-fetched.” The Court highlighted the constitutional tension between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to access judicial decisions, noting that erasure orders must not undermine the open court principle. The bench agreed to fully hear the matter to settle whether, and under what circumstances, the right to be forgotten can lawfully override public access to court records.
Taken together, these rulings show that Indian courts recognize privacy interests but proceed cautiously. Some high courts have granted limited erasures in special cases, while others have refused on public‐record grounds.. The Supreme Court has yet to give a final word, but Justice Chandrachud’s comments signal that any RTBF right will be balanced strictly against open‐court and information rights.
Statutory Framework: Data Protection Law
Until recently, India had no dedicated data protection statute at all. The Information Technology Act and its rules provide some privacy safeguards, but nothing specifically called a “right to be forgotten.” That changed in August 2023, when Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). The DPDP Act is modest by global standards, but it does give individuals certain data rights. Importantly, Section 12 of the DPDP Act grants every person a right to erasure of personal data collected by any data fiduciary. In plain language, Section 12(1) states that a data principal (an individual) has the “right to … erasure of her personal data” that was processed with her consent. Section 12(3) further obliges data holders to comply: upon a valid erasure request, “the Data Fiduciary shall erase her personal data unless retention of the same is necessary for the specified purpose or for compliance with any law”
In effect, the DPDP Act provides a statutory pathway to delete personal data when it is no longer needed for the purpose it was collected. This is essentially the legislative equivalent of a “right to be forgotten,” even though the Act does not use that phrase. For example, if a social media site or online service has your personal data that you consented to provide, and you withdraw consent or the purpose has been fulfilled, you can ask the site to erase those records. (One caveat: the Act allows exceptions for certain legitimate uses, legal compliance, public policy, etc.) If a data fiduciary refuses an erasure request, the Act gives you a grievance mechanism first with the company’s officer and then with the Data Protection Board created by the law to seek enforcement.
However, it is important to note that the DPDP Act is brand‐new and only gradually coming into force. The Data Protection Board is still being set up, and many existing intermediaries (like news portals, search engines or court‐record websites) are not yet fully geared to respond to erasure demands under this law. Thus, while the DPDP Act finally provides some statutory backing for data deletion, most “right to be forgotten” cases continue to rely on constitutional arguments and common law relief, as described above.
How to Exercise the Right to Be Forgotten Today
Even before the new law, individuals have pursued erasure through practical steps and court cases. In India today, a person seeking to remove unwanted content can try several avenues:
- Direct requests to platforms: One common step is to write a legal notice or formal email to the website, news outlet or search engine that published the content. For example, people have asked online news archives or bloggers to take down old articles. Search engines like Google also have standard procedures (like Google’s content removal tool) where one can flag links that violate privacy or are obsolete. Compliance is not guaranteed, but platforms often consider such requests, especially if content is demonstrably irrelevant or sensitive.
- Grievance to intermediaries: Under India’s IT Rules (2021), many online intermediaries must appoint grievance officers to handle complaints. Although these rules are mainly aimed at illegal content, one can file a grievance with the intermediary asking for removal of personal data on privacy grounds. The intermediary must respond (often within 24–36 hours for urgent complaints). Again, there is no specific section for “outdated news,” so results vary, but this is a recognized channel.
- Data Protection Act remedies: With the DPDP Act in force, individuals have a statutory route. One can formally request erasure of personal data from any organization (data fiduciary) that holds it, citing Section 12 of the Act. Under the Act, the fiduciary has to erase the data unless it falls under a legal exception. If the fiduciary refuses or fails to respond, the individual can lodge a complaint with the Data Protection Board. The Act also requires companies to provide a grievance redressal mechanism, so you can first raise it with the company’s officer and then escalate to the Board or even court if needed. In short, DPDP creates a new machinery (once fully operational) for erasure requests.
- Court petitions: In many reported cases, petitioners have turned to the judiciary. One can file a writ petition (for example, under Article 226 of the Constitution) in the High Court arguing that the continued presence of certain data violates one’s fundamental right to privacy (Article 21). The petitioner may ask the court to order the takedown or de indexing of specific URLs or to mask their name in public records. Many of the above case decisions arose this way. For instance, the Delhi and Kerala cases cited above were all high‐court petitions in which individuals sought deletion or anonymization of records. This judicial route is time-consuming and may require lawyers, but it remains the principal legal remedy until more streamlined procedures take hold.
- Complaints to regulators: If government or surveillance data is involved, one might approach relevant authorities. However, there is currently no dedicated regulator for personal data aside from the Data Protection Board under the DPDP Act. In criminal matters, an accused can also apply to the trial court or higher courts to expunge or seal records if the charges are dropped or acquitted (though courts are reluctant to expunge judicial orders in bulk).
In practice, most Indians seeking a right-to-be-forgotten outcome start with informal steps (notices or online forms) and only go to court if those fail. Until the DPDP framework is fully in place, filing a court petition under the Constitution or taking administrative action remains the fallback.
Limits and Balancing Interests
It is crucial to understand that India’s right to be forgotten is not absolute. The judiciary has repeatedly stressed that it must be balanced against the public’s interest in free speech, open courts and information. Key limitations include:
- Public records and judgments: Judicial orders and other official records are presumptively public. The Supreme Court has warned that once a judgment is delivered it “becomes part of the public record”. As a result, courts have generally refused to obliterate or erase whole judgments from legal archives. At most, courts may redact names or sensitive details from an online judgment (for example, masking an acquitted person’s identity). But ordering the complete removal of a published court decision, it has been said, is an “extreme step” that conflicts with the “universal right to information”. Similarly, acts of Parliament, gazette notifications or authenticated government records are inherently public and cannot be wiped out by personal request.
- Freedom of the press and speech: Newspapers, books and broadcasters have a protected right to report truthful matters of public concern. If an article or book lawfully reports past facts, individuals generally cannot demand its erasure just because it hurts their feelings. The old R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu rule still holds: you cannot object to publication if it is based on public records like court filings or proceedings. In other words, truthful news or history (even unflattering) that was correctly reported is not easily made to disappear. Editors and journalists have broad 19(1)(a) protections, so courts are cautious before ordering any delisting of news media content.
- Right to Information: India’s Right to Information Act grants citizens access to government-held data (subject to some exceptions). Courts have noted that allowing blanket removal of official information would undermine this statutory right. For example, Justice Chandrachud observed that if judgments (which are public documents) could be erased from websites, “how would [one] logically order erasing of [high court] verdicts from websites and legal chronicles?”. In short, what is meant for the public domain stays there.
- Not a guarantee of oblivion: Even in Europe, GDPR’s right to erasure is subject to exceptions, and India’s erasure right under the DPDP Act is similar. Data can still be retained for legal compliance, historical archives, research or public health reasons. Moreover, “right to be forgotten” does not force people to stop talking about you or destroy all knowledge. It usually operates as an order to search engines or intermediaries to stop pointing to the content the original content (if lawful) might remain on the host site, but it becomes harder to find. Thus, one cannot demand erasure of all records about oneself, especially true public information; the law only allows removing links or anonymising data in limited cases.
In summary, Indian law tries to strike a balance. You have a right to keep your life private in many respects, but you cannot erase all inconvenient truths from public view. Current jurisprudence and statutes permit erasure when personal privacy clearly outweighs any public interest, but they firmly protect the opposite scenario: genuine news reporting, public records and the freedom of information. As the Supreme Court has noted, matters of public record (especially court judgments) are not “simply obliterated by a judicial order”.
Conclusion
The right to be forgotten in India is an evolving concept. Courts have begun to embrace the idea that individuals should not be perpetually punished by their own histories, especially in an age when old incidents can be rebroadcast by internet searches. Yet India’s experience shows that this right is tightly constrained by constitutional and societal interests. The new Data Protection Act gives some legal teeth to erasure demands, but even it carves out broad exceptions for law and purpose. For now, anyone seeking to “erase” information must proceed carefully: first asking the content holder to delete or de-index it, and if necessary, invoking privacy protections in court. Even a full acquittal, as judges say, does not mean all traces of your name vanish; at best, sensitive identifiers can be masked.
As of mid-2025, the definitive test of India’s right to be forgotten is still pending before the Supreme Court. The justices will have to decide exactly how far this right extends and how it competes with other freedoms. In the meantime, the state of the law is what it has been for the past several years: a contested “sweet spot” between individual dignity and the public’s right to know. Any claim for erasure will be judged by whether the personal harm truly outweighs the public interest in keeping the record alive, on the facts of each case.
