Right to be forgotten: Delhi High Court lays down guidelines for masking personal details in court orders

The Delhi High Court has recognised the right to be forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Sachin Datta held that individuals may seek the removal or masking of personal information from online judicial records where continued accessibility causes disproportionate harm to their privacy, dignity and reputation.

"The right to be forgotten thus reflects the evolution of privacy in response to the permanence of online information. In a society where digital records are virtually indelible, the ability to seek erasure ensures that informational self-determination remains effective. It protects individuals from perpetual exposure to past events that may no longer bear relevance, while preserving their dignity and autonomy in the society," the Court observed.

The High Court passed the order on a batch of petitions seeking de-indexing, de-linking or removal of content on the internet. The petitioners argued that right to privacy incorporates the ‘right to be forgotten’.

The Court examined petitions from a diverse group of individuals, including persons acquitted of criminal charges, parties to matrimonial disputes and individuals whose names appeared incidentally in court proceedings. Many petitioners argued that online search results linking their names to past legal disputes continued to damage their professional and personal lives despite the proceedings having ended in their favour.

Apart from the removal of the news stories, reliefs were also sought against legal platforms like Indian Kanoon, which publishes court orders. The petitioners said that directions should be issued to such platforms to mask the names of the parties so that they do not reflect in search results.

In a detailed judgment, the Court laid down a framework for deciding requests to de-index or remove personal information from online judicial records.

Justice Datta said that masking should protect privacy without affecting the integrity of judicial records. Under its framework, only names and personal identifiers would be concealed, while the judgment’s reasoning, findings and legal conclusions would remain publicly accessible.

Unredacted versions would continue to be preserved in court records and remain available to courts, parties and authorities for legitimate legal purposes. Masking would apply to both existing and future digital versions of judgments.

Once a court issues a masking order, search engines and legal databases must de-index the judgment from name-based searches, the Court said.

It added that the judicial forums may also review or revoke such orders if circumstances change, and applications should be decided promptly given the continuing harm caused by online disclosure of personal information.