The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a significant question impacting press freedom, particularly in the online space - can a person, who was accused of a criminal offence, seek deletion of old news reports about the case from the internet after being discharged in the case?
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice on a plea filed by Indian Express (digital) challenging a Delhi High Court order to remove multiple news reports from the internet.
The apex court stayed the High Court order and clarified that it would not operate as a precedent. The proceedings before the civil court, however, were not stayed.
The case arose from a defamation suit filed by an individual who was earlier investigated and arrested in a bank fraud case involving a corporate group. He was later discharged by a court and the case against him was closed.
He approached a civil court seeking removal of news articles that reported these developments, specifically three news reports published between 2020 and 2024 by the digital platform of Indian Express.
The reports were based on public records, including press releases issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and court proceedings.
One report made a passing reference to the individual’s arrest while examining broader questions about ED action in politically sensitive cases. Another report covered a Delhi High Court order that discharged him and criticised the ED’s investigation - an update that was clearly in his favour. A third report referred to his questioning by the ED and included his comments as well.
Despite this, he filed a civil suit for defamation and sought damages in 2025. He also sought interim directions to de-index or delete several URLs from the internet, invoking what he described as the “right to be forgotten”.
The principal district court granted an interim injunction directing removal of multiple news links. This was upheld by the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the publisher’s appeal and stay application in December 2025.
Appearing for Indian Express, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that the High Court order dangerously expanded the “right to be forgotten” and allowed it to be used as a tool to erase history.
He pointed out that the defamation suit itself was barred by limitation since the law allows only one year to sue for libel from the date of publication. He also stressed that the reports were truthful, accurate and drawn entirely from public records.
“The news will prevail. It cannot be erased,” Datar submitted.
He added that a subsequent discharge does not make earlier factual reporting defamatory. He warned that if such orders are allowed to stand, any person named in a news report could seek its removal later, chilling investigative journalism.
Datar argued that the Supreme Court’s privacy ruling in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India had clearly held that the right to privacy does not include a right to erase history. He posed a practical example - if a court makes adverse remarks and the media reports them, can those reports be taken down simply because the remarks are later set aside?
“This may be a landmark ruling,” Datar said, urging the Court to clearly define what the right to be forgotten is, and how it can be reconciled with press freedom.
The counsel appearing for online case repository Indian Kanoon, which was also directed to remove court orders and content, supported the challenge and flagged the serious implications of directing takedown of judicial records themselves.
After hearing the parties, the Court stayed the Delhi High Court order and clarified that it would not be treated as a precedent in other cases.
The matter will be heard next on March 16.
Indian Express was represented by Datar, along with advocates Garima Bajaj and Chanan Parwani.
Indian Kanoon was represented by advocates Apar Gupta, Naman Kumar, Avanti Deshpande, and Indumugi C.