Delhi High Court Frames Right to Be Forgotten Rules

The Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page judgment on 29 May 2026 on the enforcement of the right to be forgotten in digital records. Justice Sachin Datta recognised the right to be forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Right to Privacy and Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017. The Delhi High Court linked informational privacy with the continued availability of judicial records on internet search platforms.

De-indexing of Judicial Records

The court directed search engine operators, including Google, and legal database platforms, including Indian Kanoon, to de-index name-based search functionality in specified cases. De-indexing removes a person’s name from search results while the judgment remains accessible through case details or citations.

Cases Covered by the Framework

The framework applies to persons who were acquitted of criminal charges, discharged, or involved in proceedings that were quashed or settled. It also covers parties to purely private civil or matrimonial disputes and persons whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records.

Important Facts for Exams

• The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 require intermediaries to comply with court orders for removal or restriction of content.
• The Delhi High Court order was made public on 1 June 2026.
• The judgment was delivered while hearing a batch of more than 30 petitions filed from 2016 onwards.
• The court stated that unredacted versions of judgments will remain preserved in court records.

Judicial Records and Public Access

The court stated that names and personal identifiers may be masked in specific cases, but the reasoning, findings, and legal conclusions of judgments will remain publicly accessible. The ruling concerns judicial records in the digital public domain and their name-based searchability.