In a significant ruling on digital privacy, the Delhi High Court has held that search engines such as Google cannot indefinitely link individuals to judicial records through name-based searches in cases that have ended in acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement, as such continued online visibility may violate their "right to be forgotten".
The court directed search engine operators and legal database platforms to de-index such records from name-based search results, saying the continued online association of a person's name with resolved proceedings can cause disproportionate harm to privacy, dignity and reputation.
However, the court held that de-indexing would not be appropriate in certain categories of cases, including convictions for offences against women or children, breaches of public trust, and offences involving public servants or elected representatives.
De-indexing refers to the removal of a webpage or website from a search engine's database.
Justice Sachin Datta observed that while transparency is essential to judicial independence and accountability, the continued online association of an individual's name with judicial records can cause disproportionate harm to informational privacy, dignity and reputation, particularly when no legitimate public interest is served.
The judge held that the "right to be forgotten" — a broader manifestation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution — protects individuals from "perpetual exposure" to irrelevant past events.
The ruling came on a batch of more than 30 petitions seeking the removal of judicial records from name-based search results and masking of personal identifiers in publicly accessible digital records.
In its 144-page judgment delivered on May 29, the court held that petitioners would be free to seek masking of their identities in original judgments or orders from the courts concerned.
"The right to be forgotten, understood as subsuming the right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility, where such information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose, flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21," the court said.
"In the categories of cases with which this court is concerned, inter alia, acquittals, discharges, quashings, settlements, compounding and disputes of purely private nature, no law authorises Google or any search engine to perpetually index and surface judicial records in a manner that overrides the individual's fundamental right to informational privacy.
"No legitimate aim of sufficient specificity is served by the unlimited and unrestricted name-based searchability of records whose underlying proceedings have been resolved in favour of the concerned individual," it added.
The court, however, declined relief to PP Madhva, who sought de-indexing following a settlement in a sexual offence case. It held that there remains a continuing public interest in the accessibility of proceedings involving serious allegations against a public figure.
Relief was also denied to reality show personality Ashutosh Kaushik, who sought the removal of posts, videos and articles relating to incidents of drunken behaviour. The court said the right to be forgotten is not a mechanism for the "selective erasure" of a public figure's past conduct.
The judgment noted that de-indexing may be warranted where a case has abated due to the death of a party and continued digital accessibility causes harm to surviving family members.
The court further held that because the fundamental right to informational privacy is not territorially limited, de-indexing orders must operate globally.
Emphasising the distinction between open justice and unrestricted online visibility, the court said judicial records should remain accessible to those with a legitimate purpose but that a private individual's name should not function as a "permanent and unlimited retrieval key" through commercial search engines.
It clarified that de-indexing would not remove court records themselves, which would remain accessible through case numbers, citations and other purposeful search methods.
The court also observed that search engines are commercial platforms that generate revenue through user searches and advertising, and noted that Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules requires intermediaries to comply with lawful directions for content removal or restriction.
"All aforesaid directions shall be complied with within two weeks from today. Where relief has been granted, Google LLC/Google Inc./Google India Private Ltd. and all other search engine operators are directed to de-index the relevant content, orders, judgments and associated reportage from name-based search results," the court ordered.
It further directed the Union government, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), to ensure compliance by the intermediaries within the stipulated period.