Discuss the constitutional basis of the right to be forgotten in India in light of the *Puttaswamy* judgment and recent High Court rulings. How does it interact with the right to freedom of speech?

Q. Discuss the constitutional basis of the right to be forgotten in India in light of the Puttaswamy judgment and recent High Court rulings. How does it interact with the right to freedom of speech? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) is the claim to have stale, irrelevant personal information erased or de-indexed from public digital platforms. In India it rests not on statute but on the informational privacy limb of Article 21 read into the Constitution by K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) [1].

Constitutional basis: from Puttaswamy to Article 21 - The nine-judge bench held privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, expressly covering informational privacy — control over one's own data [1]. - Any invasion must satisfy the test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality, the same test courts now apply to erasure claims [1]. - Statutory backing remains thin: the DPDP Act, 2023 grants correction and erasure but omits an express right to be forgotten and data portability, unlike earlier 2018/2019 drafts and the EU GDPR [3]. - The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended RTBF as a core participation right of the data principal [4].

Recent High Court rulings - The Delhi High Court (29 May 2026, Justice Sachin Datta) held RTBF a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy and laid down a framework for masking and de-indexing judicial records [2]. - The remedy is calibrated: only names and identifiers are masked; reasoning and legal conclusions stay public, and unredacted records survive in court files [2]. - Relief lies where continued online accessibility causes disproportionate harm to privacy, dignity and reputation — acquittals, matrimonial disputes, victims of sexual offences [2].

Interaction with free speech Article 19(1)(a) protects both expression and the public's right to receive information, and open justice is a facet of it. Over-broad erasure risks censoring legitimate public-interest reporting. Courts therefore prefer de-indexing over deletion — the record survives, only name-based searchability ends [2].

RTBF thus emerges as a judicially crafted balance between dignity under Article 21 and free speech under Article 19(1)(a). A clear statutory framework with a notified regulator, as the Srikrishna Committee envisaged [4], would replace case-by-case adjudication with predictable, proportionate protection — securing privacy without dimming the sunlight of open justice.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India (24 Aug 2017) — privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21; informational privacy; proportionality test 2. Delhi High Court judgment dated 29.05.2026, W.P.(C) 1021/2016 — masking/de-indexing framework for judicial records; scope and threshold of relief 3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 — PRS Legislative Research — Act omits right to be forgotten and data portability 4. A Free and Fair Digital Economy (Srikrishna Committee, 2018) — PRS Report Summary — RTBF recommended as a participation right; statutory framework and regulator