In a landmark 144 Page judgment on digital privacy, the Delhi High Court has held that the Right to Be Forgotten is a facet of the fundamental right to informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and can justify directing search engines and online platforms to de-index judicial records, news reports and other content from name-based search results in appropriate cases.
Justice Sachin Datta in a batch of petitions raising concerns over continued online accessibility of judicial records, examined the intersection between privacy rights, reputation, open justice and the permanence of information in the digital age. The Court observed that the petitions raised a common grievance: that continued name-based searchability of judicial records causes disproportionate and continuing harm to an individual’s dignity, reputation and life prospects, often long after criminal proceedings have ended or private disputes have been resolved.
The Court held that informational privacy includes an individual’s right to control the dissemination of personal information and recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as part of that constitutional protection. Relying on the Supreme Court’s privacy ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Court noted that while humans forget, the internet does not, and individuals should not be condemned to carry the burden of past allegations, mistakes or proceedings indefinitely where no legitimate public interest survives.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the Right to Be Forgotten is not a right to erase history. It emphasised that judicial records cannot ordinarily be removed from existence and that privacy rights must be balanced against the principles of open justice, freedom of expression and public access to court proceedings.
Drawing a distinction between de-indexing and takedown, the Court held that the appropriate remedy in many cases is de-indexing rather than deletion. Under this approach, the judicial record remains available in archives and databases, but does not appear through a simple name-based search. The Court observed that the objective is to moderate indiscriminate accessibility rather than erase the underlying record.
The Court also recognised the remedy of masking, under which names and personal identifiers may be replaced with neutral references such as “X” or “Y” in publicly accessible digital versions of judgments. It clarified that masking does not alter the substance of the judgment, which continues to remain available for precedential and institutional purposes.
Importantly, the Court held that de-indexing directions, where warranted, may operate globally across all versions and domains of a search engine, observing that a remedy limited to a particular domain would be ineffective in the digital environment.
Applying the principles formulated in the judgment, the Court then examined the facts of each petition individually and determined whether de-indexing, masking or other relief was warranted in the circumstances of that case. Relief was granted in several petitions, while in others the Court declined intervention based on the facts placed on record and the applicable balancing considerations.
The Court went beyond laying down legal principles and issued a series of operational directions to ensure effective enforcement of the Right to Be Forgotten. It directed that, wherever relief had been granted, Google LLC, Google Inc., Google India Private Limited and all other search engine operators must de-index the relevant content, judicial records and related reportage from name-based search results within two weeks. The Court clarified that such directions would operate in the same manner as directions issued under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
In relation to legal databases, the Court directed Indian Kanoon (iKanoon Software Development Private Limited) to restrict name-based search functionality concerning the affected petitioners. At the same time, the Court ensured preservation of judicial accessibility by directing that the relevant judgments and orders would continue to remain available through searches based on case number, citation, court details and date.
The Court further clarified that all petitioners in whose favour de-indexing relief had been granted would remain free to approach the court that originally rendered the judgment or order for masking of names and personal identifiers.
Significantly, the Court also placed responsibility on the Union Government for implementation of its directions. It directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to ensure compliance by Google, Indian Kanoon and other intermediary platforms operating in India. MEITY was directed to immediately communicate the Court’s directions to the concerned entities and file a compliance affidavit within four weeks.
Appearances
For Petitioners
For the Petitioners
- Mr. Rohit Madan and Mr. Akash, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1021/2016.
- Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Alisha Roy and Mr. Krishnesh Bapat, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1567/2025.
- Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mr. Satyam Thareja, Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Ms. Aleena and Mr. Nikhil Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 9824/2023.
- Mr. Kumar Sameer, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2887/2025.
- Mr. Sanjeev Sehgal, Mr. Vivek and Ms. Tulika, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2353/2023.
- Mr. Sirish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11714/2025.
- Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Ms. Shalini Sinha and Ms. Aranya Sinha, Advocates, for the petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 1861/2022.
- Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Mr. Saurabh Gangwar and Mr. Vipul Grover, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3687/2024.
- Mr. Deepraj, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18962/2025.
- Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Mr. Aditya Sachdeva and Mr. Krish Bhatia, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 12567/2022.
- Mr. Ankit Sahni, Ms. Kritika Sahni, Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia and Mr. Mohit Maru, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 12179/2024.
- Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6695/2024.
- Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Mr. Kumar Deepraj and Ms. Palak Agrawal, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18962/2025.
- Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Mr. Yashas R.K. and Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2134/2023.
- Mr. Bharat S. Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 16447/2023.
- Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 30/2025.
- Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 5608/2023.
- Mr. Vikas Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 16476/2023.
- Mr. Rohan Rai and Ms. Amisha Ray, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 12620/2021.
- Mr. Trideep Pais, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Kajal Giri, Ms. Saloni Ambastha, Ms. Somya Kumari and Mr. Prateek Yadav, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 13192/2024.
- Ms. Abhiti Vaccher, Mr. Akshat Vaccher and Ms. Poonam Nagpal, Advocates, for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 8557/2021.
- Mr. Jai Shankar, Ms. Nandita Rao, Ms. Lochan Rajput and Mr. Manoj Makhija, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11862/2025.
- Ms. Tara Narula and Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 4094/2023.
- Mr. Chinmaya Sejwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14696/2025.
- Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 9940/2024.
For Google LLC
- Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Ms. Amishi Sodani, Ms. Aiswarya Debadarshini, Mr. Ankit Tripathi, Ms. Sanya Sehgal, Ms. Vareesha Irfan, Ms. Sugandha Chhibbeer and Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocates, for Google LLC.
For Registrar General, Delhi High Court / Delhi High Court
- Ms. Aditi Mohan and Mr. Sparsh Goel, Advocates, for the Registrar General, Delhi High Court.
- Mr. Saurabh Seth, Standing Counsel for the Delhi High Court, with Ms. Neelampreet Kaur, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Mr. Kabir Dev and Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Advocates.
For Union of India / MEITY
- Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, with Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates.
- Mr. R. Venkat Prabhat, SPC, with Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra and Mr. Neeraj Raj, Advocates.
- Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Wariach, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Advocates.
- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SPC, with Mr. Sunil, Advocate.
- Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC, with Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocate.
- Mr. Rudra Paliwal, GP for Union of India.
- Mr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, Senior Central Government Counsel.
- Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, SPC, with Mr. Varun Chugh and Ms. Ayushi Agarwal, Advocates.
- Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
- Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC, with Ms. Himanshi Singh and Ms. Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates.
- Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, SPC, with Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Ms. Megha Sharma and Ms. Surbhi Tuli, Advocates.
- Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC, with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal and Ms. Samiksha, Advocates.
- Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC, with Ms. Jiniya Saha and Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocates.
- Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, CGSC, with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Jiniya Saha and Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocates.
- Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra and Ms. Poonam Shukla, Advocates.
- Mr. Neeraj, SPC, Mr. Rudra Paliwal, GP and Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advocate.
- Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, CGSC and Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate.
- Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal and Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advocates.
- Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocate.
- Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC and Ms. Upanita Soumyadarshini, Advocates.
- Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC, Mr. Aryan Dhaka and Mr. Vikrant Badesra, Advocates.
- Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh, CGSC, Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Usha Jamnal and Mr. Nyasa Sharma, Advocates.
- Ms. Manisha Agarwal Narain, CGSC, Mr. Navneet Sharma and Mr. Aakash Pathak, GP.
For Other Respondents
- Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karuna Karan, Ms. Amee Rana, Mr. Vishesh Sharma, Ms. Prasidhi Agrawal and Ms. Sana Banyal, Advocates.
- Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocate.
- Mr. Jagdish Chandra and Ms. Maansa Saxena, Advocates.
- Mr. Kaushik Moitra, Mr. Divyam Sharma and Ms. Manya Dudeja, Advocates.
- Mr. Samiron Borkataky, Mr. Ikshvaaku Marwah and Ms. Madhupreeta Nayak, Advocates.
- Mr. Kanishk Kumar, Ms. Deepika Pokharia and Mr. Priyansh Kohli, Advocates.
- Mr. Ajit Warrier, Mr. Angad Kochhar and Ms. Sakshi Agarwal, Advocates.
- Mr. Amit Bajaj, Advocate.
- Mr. Rajat Joneja, Mr. Anmol Kumar and Ms. Cheshta Dalal, Advocates.
- Ms. Rose Maria Sebi and Ms. Simran Jain, Advocates, for Yahoo India.
- Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Advocates.
- Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Ruchita Srivastava and Ms. Neha Kamboj, Advocates.
- Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates.
- Ms. Anushka Sharma and Mr. Madhav Khosla, Advocates.
- Mr. P.R. Rajhans, Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Tarun Kumar, Ms. Pratibha and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates.
- Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, SPC, with Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advocate.
- Dr. Abhimanyu Chopra, Mr. Kushagra Jain and Mr. Akhilesh, Advocates.
- Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi and Mr. Ishaan Raj, Advocates.
- Mr. Shiven Varma, Panel Counsel, GNCTD.
- Mr. Joydeep Sharma and Mr. Kaushal Kapoor, Advocates.
- Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Abhisar Bairagi and Mr. Milind Sharma, Advocates.
- Mr. Shri Singh and Ms. Tusharika Mattoo, Advocates.
