Listen to this post

The Right To Be Forgotten: Reclaiming Dignity In Digital Age

Summary: In today’s digital age, the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) is emerging as a vital extension of the right to privacy under Article 21. Sparked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment, RTBF seeks to protect individuals from lasting online stigma. While courts have offered relief in select cases, India’s legal framework remains incomplete. The Supreme Court now faces a pivotal decision: can dignity and privacy outweigh open justice in judicial archives? RTBF isn’t just an abstract legal right, it’s a call for redemption, and the right to move on in a world that never forgets

What happens when the internet refuses to forget, even after the law has forgiven? This marks the beginning of a new constitutional challenge in India, extending beyond courtrooms and legal statutes, reaching the core of human dignity in the digital era. In a world where information is not only readily accessible, but virtually ineffaceable, the ideals of reputation and privacy are put to test daily, frequently resulting in tangible consequences for individuals who, despite legal exoneration, remain burdened by the stigma of prior allegations. These digital remnants can continue to label individuals as  accused, even after exoneration.

In this context, the Right to be Forgotten (“RTBF”) is emerging as a vital facet of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”), recognising that the State’s duty to protect life and personal liberty must extend to shielding individuals from the perpetual afterlife of online stigma.

Notably, RTBF found its most prominent articulation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s landmark K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (“Puttaswamy”), judgment, which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, laying the groundwork for RTBF to take root in the Indian jurisprudence.    

From Digital Chains to Constitutional Redemption: How the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy Judgment shed light on the Right to be Forgotten under Article 21 of the Constitution         

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy recognised that every individual enjoys the right to privacy, and that it is an important aspect of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This protection extends to bodily integrity, control over personal information, and the freedom to make autonomous personal choices.

Though RTBF was not directly adjudicated, the Court implicitly recognised the concept of RTBF, anchoring it in dignity, decisional autonomy, and personal liberty. Notably, Justice Kaul, in a separate judgment, emphasised that every individual is entitled to exercise control over his/ her own life and image as portrayed to the world and to control commercial use of his/ her identity. Justice Kaul further observed that to protect individual autonomy and personal dignity, individuals can seek to remove information that is “no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest”.

This implicit recognition of RTBF has since spurred Indian High Courts to interpret and apply RTBF in varied ways. In the absence of statutory codification, the doctrine remains inconsistent in its enforcement.

Legislative Developments and the Statutory Gaps: Evaluating the Evolving Framework for the Right to be Forgotten in India

Despite this constitutional recognition, India’s statutory framework for RTBF remains a work in progress. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), and its rules are silent on RTBF, focusing instead on sovereignty, public order, and decency. Even the yet to be notified Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDPA”), representing India’s first legislative attempt to codify aspects of RTBF, offers only partial relief, with exceptions for journalistic, archival, and legal purposes. Section 12 of the DPDPA permits individuals to request erasure of personal data once its purpose has been fulfilled; however, these protections apply only to private data fiduciaries and not to judicial repositories.

Section 79(3) of the IT Act, read with Rule 3(b)(ii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, requires intermediaries to make reasonable efforts to prevent hosting privacy‑invasive content. Nevertheless, prejudicial material continues to remain accessible online, constituting an ongoing invasion of privacy, while the legislative architecture remains incomplete.

This legislative void has positioned the courts as the primary architects of RTBF jurisprudence. In this evolving landscape, a few cases have tested the boundaries of RTBF directly and contentiously (discussed subsequently).

Balancing RTBF vis-à-vis Principles of Open Justice: Verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Awaited

Karthick Theodore, an Indian national, had been convicted of rape and cheating under Sections 376 (punishment for rape) and 417 (punishment for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to imprisonment by the Trial court vide judgment dated September 29, 2011. This conviction was subsequently overturned by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a criminal appeal (being Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2011) filed by Theodore, acquitting him of all charges.

Years later, Theodore filed a writ petition, being (W.P. (MD) No. 12015 of 2021) before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, seeking removal of his name and other identifying details from the court’s judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2011. He also sought directions to Ikanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd., a private platform publishing court decisions, to implement the corresponding redactions. However, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on August 03, 2021.

Aggrieved, Theodore filed a writ Appeal (being W.A. (MD) No. 1901 of 2021) under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Appeal, seeking inter alia to set aside the dismissal and secure redaction of his identity. Thereafter, the Ld. Division Bench allowed limited anonymisation, holding that while judicial records form a part of the public domain under the principle of open justice, the enduring online availability of such information can cause disproportionate harm to an acquitted person’s dignity post acquittal.

In the aftermath of the Ld. Division Bench’s decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Karthick Theodore v Registrar General & Ors., 2024, SCC OnLine Mad 6529, Ikanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Respondent No. 4 in aforesaid writ Appeal, filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (C) No. 15311 of 2024, titled “Ikanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd v. Karthick Theodore & Ors.”, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

By way of order dated July 24, 2024, the Ld. Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stayed the Division Bench decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and tagged the matter with Alka Malhotra v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 19 of 2024, which raised similar questions on RTBF and the continued online availability of court decisions.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court must now decide whether, and to what extent, RTBF can be enforced against judicial archives in a constitutional system founded on transparency and open justice. Therefore, recognition and enforcement of RTBF represents not just a legal battle, but a societal reckoning of what it means to leave the past behind in an age of permanent digital memory.

It is also pertinent to note that the Theodore ordeal mirrors the struggle faced by many individuals, reflecting a growing need for RTBF nationwide as demonstrated hereinunder:

  • Jorawar Singh Mundy v. UOI & Ors. W.P.(C) 3918 of 2021 & CM APPL. 11767of 2021: The petitioner, an Indian-origin American citizen, had been acquitted in a criminal case, but later found that the continued availability of the Indian Court judgment online adversely affected his career prospects in the United States. Recognising this, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court acknowledged the petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity and accordingly directed search engines to de-index the said judgment.
  • Vysakh K.G. v. UOI, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 7337: The Hon’ble Kerala High Court granted relief to litigants whose names were published in online judgments, holding that the RTBF applies to past (not ongoing) cases, particularly when continued publication causes social or professional harm.
  • Mr. SJ v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 5608 of 2023: The petitioner, after being acquitted, struggled to find employment due to persistent online news reports about his alleged involvement in the criminal case. In view thereof, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (i) ordered Google and media outlets to remove the prejudicial content and anonymize the petitioner’s name from all court records; and (ii) recognised that the right to privacy includes the right to move on, free from unnecessary reputational harm.
  • Rakesh Jagdish Kalra v. India Today Group & Ors, 2024, SCC OnLine Del 5113: Even after acquittal, media houses continued to host content connecting the plaintiff to criminal allegations. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed immediate removal of the prejudicial content, holding that the right to privacy, especially after legal exoneration, could outweigh freedom of expression when the latter serves no ongoing public interest.

The aforesaid judgments underscore the judiciary’s attempt to balance individual dignity with open justice, an equilibrium now the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s radar.

Key Takeaways

The RTBF is more than a legal doctrine; it is an inalienable human right that underscores individuals’ potential for change, and a chance at redemption and dignity. As technology races ahead and digital footprints become permanent, Indian courts and lawmakers are slowly but surely recognising that constitutional empathy and modern privacy can go hand in hand.

Today, the RTBF in India is (i) recognised in principle through Puttaswamy and a growing body of High Court rulings; (ii) uncodified except for partial recognition in the DPDPA, which has substantial limitations; and (iii) judicially invoked, but applied on a case-to-case basis, with no uniform standard or consistent outcome.

As the Hon’ble Supreme Court prepares to draw clearer boundaries, the hope is for a future where constitutional empathy, modern privacy, and human dignity advance together, empowering every individual with the right not just to be forgiven, but to be forgotten.