What is the right to be forgotten?

1. At a Glance

• "Right to be forgotten" (RTBF) = right to have personal information erased or de-indexed from public digital platforms when it is no longer relevant/serves no public interest, despite the matter being legally settled. [4]
• Flows from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, as recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). [4][5]
• Freshly examinable due to the Delhi High Court's 2026 judgment creating operational rules for de-indexing, directly linking constitutional law, IT intermediary liability, and the DPDP Act, 2023. [1][2]

2. Why in the News

• Delhi High Court, in a 144-page ruling delivered 29 May 2026 (Justice Sachin Datta), laid down principles governing RTBF in India, holding search engines (Google) and legal databases (Indian Kanoon) constitutionally obligated to de-index name-based search results in sensitive cases — acquittals, matrimonial disputes, sexual-offence victims, exonerated accused. [1][2]
• The ruling interprets the DPDP Act even though the Act itself excludes information disclosed through judicial proceedings from its protections. [1]
• A related domain-privacy order by the Delhi HC (ending default WHOIS privacy for domain owners) is separately being challenged by GoDaddy in appeal, showing the ruling's wider ripple effects on digital-privacy enforcement. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• 2014: European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mario Costeja González (Spain), directing Google to stop showing an old auction notice about his repossessed house after the debt was settled — origin case of RTBF globally.
• This principle was codified as the "right to erasure" under Article 17 of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
• India, 2017: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — Supreme Court held privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, including informational privacy. [4][5]
• Post-Puttaswamy, High Courts diverged in approach on RTBF claims (some allowing erasure/de-indexing, others declining) due to absence of explicit statutory backing.
• 2018: Srikrishna Committee report described RTBF as an attempt to "instil the limitations of memory into an otherwise limitless digital sphere." [5]
• 2019/2022/2023: Successive Personal Data Protection Bills drafted; the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 was enacted but notably does not explicitly grant a standalone right to be forgotten or right to data portability to the "data principal." [5]
• 29 May 2026: Delhi HC judgment operationalises RTBF via de-indexing directions against Google and Indian Kanoon. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Grounds RTBF in Article 21 privacy jurisprudence rather than a standalone statutory right, since DPDP Act, 2023 excludes court-record information from its ambit. [1][5]
• Creates tension between judicial transparency/open-court principle and individual privacy, resolved via de-indexing rather than deletion — judgment stays accessible via citation/case number, just not searchable by name. [1][2]

Ethical / Governance

• Raises "who decides" erasure requests — courts, intermediaries, or a data protection authority — since DPDP Act lacks explicit erasure provisions. [5]
• Balances against free speech and right to receive information — over-broad erasure risks censorship of public-interest information. [5]

Scientific / Technological

• De-indexing is a technically distinct remedy from deletion: search engines and legal databases must modify indexing algorithms, not destroy underlying records. [1][2]
• AI-driven aggregation and searchability (LLMs indexing court records) intensifies the "digital footprint" problem the ruling addresses. [1]

Administrative

• Compliance burden falls on private intermediaries (Google, Indian Kanoon) acting as quasi-adjudicators of erasure requests absent statutory rules. [1][2]
• No dedicated regulator yet notified under DPDP Act to standardise RTBF-type requests.

Historical / Comparative

• India's approach mirrors the EU's Google Spain case (2014) but via constitutional privacy law rather than dedicated erasure legislation like GDPR Article 17.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 29 May 2026 — Delhi HC delivers RTBF judgment directing de-indexing by Google and Indian Kanoon in sensitive-case categories. [1][2]
• Early July 2026 — Related Delhi HC order ending default domain-registration privacy is appealed by GoDaddy, highlighting downstream digital-privacy disputes triggered by the broader RTBF jurisprudence. [1]
• Legal commentary (Business Standard, July 2026) frames the ruling as opening a debate on privacy vs. AI-driven information aggregation. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• RTBF traces to the 2014 ECJ case Google Spain v. Mario Costeja González.
• Codified globally under Article 17, EU GDPR as the "right to erasure."
• In India, RTBF is judicially derived from Article 21, not a standalone statute.
• Landmark Indian precedent: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — 9-judge bench, right to privacy is a fundamental right.
• The DPDP Act, 2023 does not explicitly grant the right to be forgotten or right to data portability.
• DPDP Act excludes information disclosed via judicial proceedings from its protective scope.
• 2026 Delhi HC RTBF judgment authored by Justice Sachin Datta, delivered 29 May 2026, running 144 pages.
• The Delhi HC remedy is de-indexing, not deletion — judgments remain accessible via case number/citation.
• Entities named in the 2026 ruling: Google and Indian Kanoon.
• Categories eligible for de-indexing per the ruling: acquittals, matrimonial disputes, sexual-offence victims, exonerated accused.
• The Srikrishna Committee (2018) first examined RTBF for Indian data protection law.
• RTBF must be balanced against free speech and the right to receive information.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II — Indian Constitution (fundamental rights, Article 21), judiciary (role of High Courts in rights jurisprudence), Government policies/interventions (DPDP Act).
• GS-III — IT/cyber issues, data protection, intermediary liability.
• Possible question stems: 1. "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?" (GS-II) 2. "Critically examine whether the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 adequately addresses the right to be forgotten." (GS-II/III) 3. "De-indexing versus deletion — evaluate this distinction as a judicial remedy for balancing privacy and open justice in the digital age." (GS-II)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — the foundational privacy judgment underpinning RTBF.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — the primary Indian data-protection statute and its gaps.
• GDPR (EU) — comparative global standard for data erasure rights.
• Intermediary liability / IT Rules, 2021 — governs obligations of platforms like Google.
• Open Court Principle / Judicial Transparency — the competing constitutional value RTBF must be balanced against.
• Srikrishna Committee Report, 2018 — genesis of India's data protection legislative framework.
• Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression — counterweight right in RTBF disputes.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse RTBF with complete deletion of records — Indian courts have endorsed de-indexing, which keeps records accessible by citation, not name-search.
• Do not assume the DPDP Act, 2023 explicitly grants RTBF — it does not; the right currently rests on judicial interpretation of Article 21.
• Do not attribute the origin case to an Indian court — the foundational case is EU/ECJ (Google Spain, 2014), not Puttaswamy.
• Distinguish GDPR Article 17 (statutory erasure right) from India's constitutional/judicial-only approach (no equivalent codified article yet).
• Note the entities involved in the 2026 case are Google and Indian Kanoon — not government agencies.