The Delhi High Court has recognised the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) as an important component of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. In doing so, the Court also laid down a detailed framework for de-indexing, de-linking, and masking judicial records available online.
Justice Sachin Datta delivered the 144-page judgment in W.P.(C) 1021/2016 and connected matters. Through the ruling, the Court addressed several petitions filed by individuals seeking the removal, de-indexing, de-linking, or masking of judicial records and online content associated with their names.
At the heart of the dispute lay a conflict between informational privacy and dignity on one side and open justice, free speech, and public access to court records on the other.
Multiple Petitioners Sought Removal of Online Records
The batch included petitions from people acquitted in criminal cases, parties involved in matrimonial disputes, individuals discharged from criminal proceedings, and persons whose cases had been settled or quashed.
In some instances, petitioners appeared only incidentally in judicial records. Nevertheless, their names remained accessible through online searches.
According to the petitioners, search engines continued to display judicial records and news reports linked to their names long after proceedings had ended. As a result, many claimed they suffered reputational harm, social stigma, professional setbacks, and privacy concerns.
Moreover, several petitioners argued that search results continued to connect them with allegations despite acquittals, discharge orders, closure reports, settlements, or quashing of proceedings. Others objected to the continued online visibility of matrimonial and family disputes.
Court Examines Privacy in the Digital Age
While considering these petitions, Justice Datta noted that they raised an important constitutional question. Specifically, the Court examined whether individuals could seek de-indexing of judicial records from name-based searches and request masking of personal identifiers.
Importantly, the Court recognised that modern search engines enable instant retrieval and widespread circulation of information. Consequently, personal data can remain accessible indefinitely.
Against this backdrop, the judgment held that informational privacy forms a core component of the right to privacy under Article 21. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Right to be Forgotten flows from the constitutional guarantees of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty.
Right to Be Forgotten Recognised Under Article 21
After examining constitutional principles and developments in digital privacy law, the Court concluded that the Right to be Forgotten forms part of informational privacy protected under Article 21.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the right is not absolute. Instead, it must coexist with competing constitutional values such as freedom of expression, transparency in judicial proceedings, and public access to court records.
Accordingly, judges must balance privacy interests against public interest before granting de-indexing or masking relief.
Open Justice Remains a Core Constitutional Principle
Although the Court acknowledged privacy concerns, it reaffirmed the constitutional importance of open justice.
According to the judgment, courts generally conduct proceedings openly because transparency strengthens public confidence in the justice system and promotes accountability.
Therefore, the Court rejected the proposition that litigants can routinely erase judicial records from the public domain.
Rather, courts must carefully justify any restriction on public access to judicial records.
Framework for De-Indexing Judicial Records
To clarify the legal position, the Court distinguished between three different forms of relief:
• Deletion or removal of judicial records
• Masking of personal information
• De-linking or de-indexing from search engine results
Importantly, the judgment clarified that de-indexing does not delete judicial records. Instead, it prevents those records from appearing in name-based searches while preserving access through lawful means.
Consequently, courts may grant de-indexing in appropriate cases where continued online visibility causes disproportionate harm to privacy, dignity, or reputation and where that harm outweighs any legitimate public interest.
Cases Where Relief May Be Granted
The Court identified several categories in which de-indexing or related relief may be appropriate:
• Acquittals
• Discharge orders
• Quashed criminal proceedings
• Accepted closure reports
• Matrimonial and family disputes
• Settled or compounded matters
• Cases involving incidental references to individuals
• Proceedings containing highly personal or sensitive information
However, the Court stressed that judges must evaluate every request on its own facts. Therefore, no category automatically qualifies for relief.
Legal Tests for De-Indexing and Masking
To guide future cases, the judgment established several factors that courts should consider when evaluating requests for de-indexing and masking:
• Nature and sensitivity of the information
• Passage of time
• Outcome of the proceedings
• Public interest in continued accessibility
• Role of the individual concerned
• Impact on reputation, dignity, and privacy
• Ongoing relevance of the information
• Availability of less restrictive alternatives
Additionally, the Court noted that overriding public interest may justify continued accessibility in certain circumstances.
Search Engines and Digital Platforms
The Court also examined the role of search engines in the digital ecosystem. In particular, it observed that search engines significantly influence how users discover and consume information online.
For that reason, courts may direct search engines to de-index judicial records from name-based searches in appropriate cases. Such directions preserve the underlying records while reducing their visibility in search results.
The judgment further discussed the territorial scope of such directions and the practical challenges involved in implementing them.
Relief Granted in Individual Cases
Finally, the Court applied the principles laid down in the judgment to each petition individually.
Using the balancing framework, it examined cases involving acquittals, discharge orders, quashed proceedings, matrimonial disputes, and settled matters. It then determined whether the petitioners qualified for de-indexing, masking, or other forms of relief.
In addition, the judgment established guidelines for future requests involving de-indexing and masking of judicial records.
Case Details
Case: W.P.(C) 1021/2016 & Connected Matters
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Sachin Datta
Decision Date: May 2026
Key Issue: Recognition of the Right to Be Forgotten and establishment of a framework governing de-indexing, de-linking, and masking of judicial records.
