De-indexing versus deletion — evaluate this distinction as a judicial remedy for balancing privacy and open justice in the digital age.

Q. De-indexing versus deletion — evaluate this distinction as a judicial remedy for balancing privacy and open justice in the digital age. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The right to be forgotten flows from informational privacy under Article 21, recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) [1]. Courts have answered the privacy–transparency conflict not by erasing judicial records but by de-indexing them — a calibrated middle path that largely succeeds, though it leaves gaps.

The distinction explained - Deletion/erasure removes the underlying record — the model of Article 17, EU GDPR. - De-indexing merely breaks the link between a person's name and the record; the judgment survives, retrievable by case number, citation, court and date. The Delhi High Court's 144-page ruling of 29 May 2026 (Justice Sachin Datta) directed Google and Indian Kanoon to de-index name-based results in acquittals, quashings, matrimonial disputes and sexual-offence cases [2].

Merits as a remedy - Preserves open justice: the judicial record stays intact and citable, so precedent, scrutiny and legal research are unaffected — deletion would have destroyed all three. - Proportionality-compliant: it is the least restrictive means, satisfying the Puttaswamy legality–necessity–proportionality test [1]. - Targets the real harm: perpetual name-searchability, not the judgment itself; the Srikrishna Committee (2018) framed this as instilling the limitations of memory into a limitless digital sphere [3]. - Protects competing rights: keeps free speech and the right to receive information alive, which the Committee flagged as the key counterweight [3].

Limitations - No statutory anchor — the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 confers neither a right to be forgotten nor data portability, and excludes court-proceeding information [4]. - Private adjudication: intermediaries decide requests without notified rules or a regulator. - Leaky in practice: archived reportage, mirror sites and AI-driven aggregation can restore name-linkage.

De-indexing is therefore the correct remedial choice — it dilutes discoverability without diluting the record, honouring both privacy and transparency. Its durability now depends on legislative follow-through: statutory recognition of erasure rights under the DPDP framework, with a notified authority and appellate scrutiny, would convert a sound judicial innovation into a stable rights guarantee.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Supreme Court of India — Judgments (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) — privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21; proportionality test 2. Delhi High Court — Latest Judgments — 29 May 2026 ruling directing de-indexing by Google and Indian Kanoon 3. PRS Report Summary — A Free and Fair Digital Economy (Srikrishna Committee, 2018) — "limitations of memory" framing; balance with free speech and right to receive information 4. PRS — The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 — Act does not grant right to be forgotten or data portability