Right to be Forgotten in India: Puttaswamy, the Delhi HC Framework and the DPDP Act

Two ideas that sound alike

• The right to erasure means data is deleted from the source. A company wipes your record.
• The right to be forgotten is wider. It also covers de-indexing, where a page stays online but stops showing in a search for your name.
• The right is never absolute. It must be weighed against free speech and the public interest.

Europe leads

• In Google Spain v. AEPD (2014), the EU Court of Justice held that a search engine must remove links to outdated personal data on request. (Source: EU Court of Justice, C-131/12)
• The EU’s GDPR then wrote this into Article 17. It is titled “right to erasure (right to be forgotten)”. The GDPR applies from 25 May 2018. (Source: GDPR Art. 17)
• For the full law, see The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The 2017 base

• In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
• The ruling covers informational privacy, which is control over data about yourself.
• Courts later used this idea to hear forgetting claims.
• Read the full case in Right to Privacy and the Puttaswamy Judgment and Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Different answers

• Karnataka (Sri Vasunathan, 2017): the court let a woman’s name be hidden from online search results in a case about her family. (Source: Nishith Desai)
• Odisha (Subhranshu Rout, 2020): the court said the right could help victims of sexual images posted without consent. It noted the draft Personal Data Protection Bill. (Source: Nishith Desai)
• Kerala (Vysakh K.G., 2022): the court described facets of the right to be forgotten. (Source: SCC Online)
• Madras: in the Karthick Theodore matter, the court ordered a judgment off Indian Kanoon. The Supreme Court stayed that order in 2024. (Source: Bar and Bench)

The case

• The case is Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, decided by Justice Sachin Datta on 29 May 2026. It covered over 35 petitions in one 144-page ruling. (Source: SCC Online)
• The court held the right flows from informational privacy under Article 21. It is not absolute.
• It said search engines are not passive. They index, rank and show results.

Who can get relief

• People who were acquitted, discharged, or whose case was quashed.
• Parties to private matters, such as matrimonial disputes and settled cases.

Who cannot

• People convicted of offences against women or children.
• People convicted of breach of public trust, such as public servants.
• Public figures whose conduct is still of public concern.

What the court ordered

• De-indexing: Google and other search engines remove the pages from name searches. The pages stay online.
• Indian Kanoon: it switches off name search for the records. Search by case number, court and date still works.
• Masking: a petitioner can ask the original court to hide names in the public version. The court file keeps the full text.
• Compliance was due within two weeks. MeitY must ensure intermediaries comply. (Source: SCC Online)

The 2024 stay

• On 24 July 2024, a bench led by the then Chief Justice stayed the Madras order and issued notice. (Source: MediaNama)
• Judgments are part of the public record, the bench noted. Orders to remove them can have serious effects. (Source: Bar and Bench)
• Rights groups say the Court will decide how far the right reaches into judicial records. (Source: Internet Freedom Foundation)
• I found no final ruling by late October 2026. Treat the matter as pending.

Erasure, but not forgetting

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 gives a right to correction and erasure in Section 12.
• It works mainly where the person gave consent for the data to be used.
• It does not name a right to be forgotten. It does not reach news archives or search results. (Source: JLRJS)
• The 2018 Srikrishna Committee draft bill had a clause on restricting continuing disclosure. The 2023 Act did not keep it.

Rights pulling apart

• Privacy and dignity favour hiding old charges, especially after an acquittal.
• Open courts and free speech favour keeping judgments public.
• Courts decide case by case today. A law could name a regulator instead.
• Critics say the internet never forgets, so de-indexing may only cover part of the harm. (Source: Lexology)

For the AI angle, see Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.

Side by side

Quick recall

• Google Spain (2014) and GDPR Article 17 are the European roots.
• India has no statute that names the right. The base is Article 21 and Puttaswamy.
• De-indexing hides a page from name searches. Masking hides names in the public copy of a judgment.
• The Delhi framework bars relief for convictions involving women, children or public trust.
• The DPDP Act, 2023 has erasure in Section 12 but no right to be forgotten.

Newest first

• June 2026: the full ruling became public. Commentators ask if de-indexing can work when copies exist across the web. (Source: Lexology)
• 29 May 2026: the Delhi High Court decides Laksh Vir Singh Yadav. (Source: SCC Online)
• 24 July 2024: the Supreme Court stays the Madras order against Indian Kanoon. (Source: MediaNama)