Why in News?

In May 2026, the Delhi High Court recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as a facet of the right to informational privacy guaranteed under Article 21.

The Court laid down a detailed framework for:

• De-indexing judicial records from name-based internet searches.
• Masking personal identifiers in publicly available digital judgments.
• Balancing individual privacy with freedom of expression, open justice and the public’s right to know.

Case Details

• Court: Delhi High Court
• Case: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. and Connected Matters
• Case number: W.P.(C) 1021/2016
• Judgment delivered: 29 May 2026
• Judge: Justice Sachin Datta

The judgment covered a batch of petitions involving acquitted persons, parties to matrimonial disputes and individuals whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records.

Background

Laksh Vir Singh Yadav’s name appeared in an order passed in a criminal matter merely because he was the husband of one of the parties. He was neither accused nor involved in the criminal proceedings.

However, an online search using his name displayed the judicial order, creating a misleading impression that he was associated with criminal activity.

Other connected petitioners included individuals who:

• Had been acquitted, discharged or had criminal proceedings quashed.
• Were involved in settled matrimonial or private disputes.
• Faced continuing social, professional and reputational harm because old court records remained searchable through their names.

Central Issue

The principal question before the Court was:

Can a person invoke the right to informational privacy under Article 21 to seek de-indexing of judicial records from name-based internet searches and masking of personal identifiers in publicly available digital judgments?

The Court also had to balance this claim against:

• Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Freedom of the press.
• The public’s right to know.
• The principle of open justice.
• Preservation of accurate judicial records.

Delhi High Court’s Judgment

The Court held that the Right to Be Forgotten flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional right to informational privacy under Article 21.

It allows an individual to seek restriction of personal information in the digital domain when the information:

• Is no longer relevant.
• Is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading.
• Serves no legitimate public purpose.
• Causes disproportionate harm to dignity, reputation or personal autonomy.

However, the Right to Be Forgotten is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against freedom of expression, transparency, public interest and open justice.

Absence of a Specific Law

The Court acknowledged that India does not presently have a comprehensive statutory framework expressly governing the Right to Be Forgotten.

Nevertheless, it held that the absence of legislation does not prevent constitutional courts from protecting fundamental rights. Where a legislative vacuum affects fundamental rights, courts may formulate appropriate principles, as recognised in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.

Right to Privacy Against Private Entities

Google, Indian Kanoon and other digital platforms argued that they were private entities and ordinarily not subject to writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that informational privacy may be protected against both:

• State authorities; and
• Non-State actors such as search engines, digital platforms and private corporations.

Therefore, the High Court may issue appropriate directions under Article 226 where the actions of private digital platforms infringe Article 21 rights.

Search engines and legal databases are also subject to obligations under the Information Technology Rules, 2021, after receiving a valid court order.

De-indexing and Masking

What is De-indexing?

De-indexing means preventing a particular webpage or judicial record from appearing when someone searches for an individual’s name.

It operates at the level of:

• Search engines such as Google.
• Legal databases such as Indian Kanoon.
• Other digital platforms hosting or indexing the content.

De-indexing does not mean deletion

The original judgment or order continues to exist and remains accessible through:

• Case number
• Legal citation
• Name of the court
• Date of judgment
• Other case-related identifiers

Only the person’s name stops functioning as an unrestricted search key. Therefore, the judicial record remains available for legal research, precedent and institutional accountability.

What is Masking?

Masking means replacing a person’s name, address or other identifying details in the publicly accessible digital judgment with neutral terms such as:

• “X”
• “ABC”
• “Petitioner”
• “Respondent”

Masking operates at the level of the court record displayed online.

The complete, unredacted judgment must continue to be preserved in the court’s internal records and remain available to courts, parties, lawyers and authorised authorities for legitimate purposes.

Difference between De-indexing and Masking

De-indexing

• Operates on search engines and legal databases.
• Removes the record from name-based search results.
• Does not alter the publicly available judgment itself.

Masking

• Operates on the publicly accessible version of the judicial record.
• Replaces names and personal identifiers with neutral references.
• Does not alter the reasoning, findings or legal conclusions.

The Court regarded the two remedies as complementary: de-indexing reduces digital amplification, while masking addresses the identifying information at its source.

Factors for Granting De-indexing

Courts must consider the following factors:

1. Nature of the information: Whether it concerns intimate private life, professional conduct or a matter of public record.
   
2. Passage of time: Whether the information continues to remain relevant after several years.
   
3. Public role of the individual: Public officials and influential public figures are subject to greater transparency concerning their public conduct.
   
4. Accuracy and completeness: False, misleading, outdated or incomplete information strengthens the claim for relief.
   
5. Impact on dignity and reputation: The extent of stigma, reputational harm and interference with the person’s ability to live a dignified life.
   
6. Degree of digital amplification: Whether search engines make the information instantly and disproportionately accessible.
   
7. Effect on free expression and public records: Whether restricting access would adversely affect press freedom, transparency or the integrity of judicial records.
   

These factors must be weighed contextually rather than applied as a mechanical checklist.

Cases Where Relief May Normally Be Granted

De-indexing or masking may generally be appropriate where:

• The accused has been acquitted.
• The person has been discharged.
• Criminal proceedings have been quashed.
• The matter has been settled or compounded.
• The dispute is purely matrimonial or private.
• The person’s name appears only incidentally.
• Information is demonstrably false, misleading or outdated.
• Continued name-based searchability serves no legitimate public interest.

The Court observed that an acquittal must have practical meaning in the digital sphere. A person should not continue to be treated as an accused merely because allegations remain permanently searchable online.

Cases Where Relief May Normally Be Refused

The Court identified categories in which de-indexing or masking would ordinarily be inappropriate:

Convictions for offences against women or children

Continued public accessibility may protect potential victims and serve an important social interest.

Convictions involving breach of public trust

This includes offences committed by:

• Public servants
• Elected representatives
• Persons holding fiduciary responsibilities

Public accountability requires continued access to information regarding abuse of public trust.

Public conduct of public figures

Conduct connected with the public or official role of a public figure remains a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.

However, becoming a public figure does not eliminate privacy over matrimonial matters, family relationships or other intimate conduct unrelated to the person’s public role.

Proceedings Abated Due to Death

Where proceedings end because the accused dies, there is no judicial finding of innocence or guilt. Therefore, the Right to Be Forgotten does not arise in its primary form.

However, de-indexing may still be granted where continued online availability causes disproportionate harm to innocent surviving family members, particularly children.

Territorial Scope of De-indexing

The Court held that de-indexing should operate across all versions and domains of the concerned search engine.

Restricting the order only to an Indian domain would be ineffective because users could access the same information through a global domain.

Accordingly, the directions may operate globally to the extent necessary to provide effective protection to informational privacy.

Important Directions

The Delhi High Court directed that:

• Search engines must remove specified content from name-based search results where relief has been granted.
• Indian Kanoon must disable name-based searches for the specified judicial records.
• The judgments must remain accessible through case number, citation, court details and date.
• Individuals granted de-indexing may approach the court that delivered the original judgment for masking.
• The originating court should ordinarily decide masking requests because it controls its own judicial records.
• Only personal identifiers may be masked; the legal reasoning and substance of the judgment must remain intact.
• The complete unredacted record must be preserved internally.
• MeitY must communicate the directions to relevant intermediaries and ensure compliance.

Significance of the Judgment

Recognition of informational self-determination

Individuals have a legitimate interest in controlling how outdated or irrelevant personal information defines them in the digital domain.

Distinction between public access and algorithmic amplification

The Court distinguished between keeping a judicial record publicly available and making it instantly discoverable through a casual name search.

Protection of the presumption of innocence

Persons who have been acquitted, discharged or exonerated should not continue to suffer the practical consequences of an allegation indefinitely.

Horizontal application of privacy

The judgment recognised that threats to privacy may arise not only from the government but also from large private digital platforms.

Balance instead of complete erasure

The Court did not create a general right to erase history. It adopted narrower remedies that preserve judicial records while limiting disproportionate digital exposure.

Concerns and Challenges

• De-indexing may affect freedom of the press and public access to judicial information.
• Different courts may apply the proportionality test inconsistently.
• Global enforcement against foreign-based search engines may be difficult.
• Excessive masking could reduce transparency and make legal research difficult.
• The judiciary is developing a framework in the absence of detailed legislation.
• Public-interest exceptions require careful and case-specific interpretation.