Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)

Context

In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court laid down guidelines for de-indexing search results of acquitted persons, reinforcing the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) as part of the right to privacy.

About the Concept

The RTBF allows individuals to seek removal or de-indexing of personal information that is outdated, irrelevant, or no longer serves a public interest. It originated from the Google Spain (2014) judgment and is recognised under Article 17 of the EU GDPR.

Legal Framework in India

• Constitutional Basis

The K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment recognized privacy under Article 21, forming the constitutional basis for RTBF.

• Limitations

RTBF is not absolute. It may be restricted in the interest of free speech, public interest, legal obligations, or research.

• Legislative Position

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides a right to correction and erasure of personal data, but its applicability to court records remains unclear.

Important Judicial Decisions

• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): Privacy declared a fundamental right.
• Zulfiqar Ahman Khan (2019): Delhi HC ordered removal of unproven allegations.
• Karthick Theodore (2024): Madras HC permitted name-redaction for acquitted individuals.
• Re: Masking of Personal Details (2023): Supreme Court introduced name-masking in sensitive cases.

Challenges

• Balancing privacy with judicial transparency.
• Conflict with freedom of speech and the RTI framework.
• Impact on journalism and historical records.
• Technical difficulty in permanently erasing online data.

Way Forward

• Clearly define RTBF under the DPDP framework.
• Apply a proportionality test before granting relief.
• Adopt privacy-by-design standards for sensitive judicial records.

Conclusion

The Right to be Forgotten seeks to balance privacy and transparency in the digital age. A clear legal framework can protect individual dignity while preserving judicial openness, free speech, and public interest.