Right to be forgotten: Delhi court orders Google, media houses to de-index articles on man cleared in ED case

In a significant step towards recognising a person’s right to be forgotten, a Delhi court recently passed a blanket order, directing media houses, Google and legal search engine India Kanoon to remove or de-index content linking a person to the alleged Moser Baer money laundering case. 

Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of the Patiala House Courts observed that since the person has been exonerated in the case, he has a right to live with dignity, and news stories naming him cannot be allowed to stay on the internet perpetually. 

“The permanence of digital information and easily accessible online records are causing potential harm to the plaintiff despite his exoneration from the case. The information serves no purpose other than that it is detrimental to the plaintiff’s reputation. In my opinion, no public interest is served by keeping online information about an individual after criminal proceedings have come to an end and individual has been cleared of guilt,” the Court said. 

Therefore, the Court passed an interim order blocking the content. 

“All the defendants are directed to block/ delete the URL Links relating to the plaintiff as detailed in para 15 (i) of the plaint from being accessed by using search engines till the disposal of the main suit,” the Court ordered. 

The defendants in the case included ANI Media, Indian Express Group, The Times Group, The Print, Hindustan Times Media Limited, NDTV, The Hindu Group as well as Google, India Kanoon and John Doe (unknown parties). 

The plaintiff approached the Court stating that though he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Moser Baer case, he was later discharged. 

He told the Court that despite his exoneration, the internet continued to host articles portraying him as an accused facilitator in the case. He stated that these articles were causing severe reputational damage, harming his career and social standing.

While some defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation and protected by the freedom of the press, the Court rejected these arguments.

It observed that the “permanence of digital information” unnecessarily prolonged harm to a person who had been cleared of all charges.

Therefore, Judge Chandna passed the order for the removal of the content.