NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held the “right to be forgotten” to be an integral part of the fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution.
In a society where digital records are virtually indelible, the ability to seek erasure ensures that informational self-determination remains effective, it added.
The high court directed to ensure that only the names and personal identifiers are masked, not the substance of the judgment under question.
Justice Sachin Datta said after a case ends up in an acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement, or is private in nature, the individuals may seek the removal or masking of personal information from online judicial records where continued accessibility causes disproportionate harm to their privacy, dignity and reputation.
The judge said that search engines like Google cannot be “perpetually permitted” to show judicial records in name-based search for such cases.
While hearing a batch of petitions, the judge 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 cited by the petitioners.
“The right to be forgotten reflects the evolution of privacy in response to the permanence of online information. In a society where digital records are virtually indelible, the ability to seek erasure ensures that informational self-determination remains effective. It protects individuals from perpetual exposure to past events that may no longer bear relevance, while preserving their dignity and autonomy in society,” it said.
The judge said any claim for de-indexing, or masking, must be balanced against competing constitutional values, such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, open justice, and the public’s right to know.
“The reasoning, findings, legal conclusions, case number, court details, etc., remain publicly accessible. The complete and unredacted version of the judgement is preserved in the court’s internal records. Masking applies only to the publicly accessible digital versions. The unredacted version remains accessible to courts, parties, advocates, and authorities,” the judge ordered in a judgment passed on May 29.