Context: In a landmark judgment delivered, the Delhi High Court recognized the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ as an integral part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
About The Right to be Forgotten:
What It Is?
- The Right to be Forgotten is the right of an individual to have their personal information, such as past criminal records or private disputes, removed from internet searches and other public platforms under specific circumstances.
- It is based on the principle of informational self-determination, allowing people to move on from past events that are no longer relevant or where the public interest in knowing the information is outweighed by the individual’s right to dignity and reputation.
History and Evolution:
- European Roots: The concept gained global prominence following the 2014 European Court of Justice ruling (Google Spain v. AEPD), which established that search engines must remove links to personal data that are inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive. It is now codified in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- Indian Context: While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment declared privacy a fundamental right, paving the way for RTBF.
- Legislative Status: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023, includes provisions for the correction, completion, and erasure of personal data, providing a statutory basis for this right in India.
The Delhi High Court Verdict:
Justice Sachin Datta laid down a comprehensive framework to balance private dignity with the public’s right to know:
- De-indexing Mandate: Platforms must disable name-based search functionality for specific cases. This means a judgment remains online, but it cannot be found by searching the individual’s name.
- Scope of Relief: Protection is primarily extended to:
- Persons acquitted of criminal charges.
- Parties involved in matrimonial or private civil disputes.
- Individuals whose names appear incidentally in records despite not being a party to the case.
- The Masking Protocol: The court ordered that personal identifiers (names, addresses) be masked/redacted, while the legal reasoning and findings of the judgment remain public to preserve judicial transparency.
- Intermediary Responsibility: The court clarified that search engines operate via automated algorithms and cannot override an individual’s fundamental right to informational privacy. Under the IT Rules 2021, they are obliged to comply with such removal orders.
Significance:
- It prevents digital stigmatization, where individuals face lifelong professional or social prejudice due to past legal issues, even after being cleared by courts.
- The ruling acknowledges that in a digital age where records are virtually indelible, the law must evolve to prevent past data from haunting an individual’s future.
- By advocating for masking rather than total deletion, the court ensures that the law remains accessible for research and precedent, but not as a tool for personal harassment.
