Introduction
A job offer revoked over a decade-old acquittal. A matrimonial dispute haunting a person’s online reputation forever. In an era of an "always-on" digital world, the right to be forgotten (RTBF) has emerged as a pressing legal battleground. Can all Indians delete their digital history? The solution is complex, and involves privacy, search engines, data protection law, free speech, and changing judicial interpretations.
Privacy: The Constitutional Anchor
The right to privacy is the source for the RTBF. In K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)[1], Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. In a concurring opinion, Justice S.K. Kaul explicitly acknowledged the right to be forgotten as a vital part, which would enable people to remove data concerning themselves that is no longer relevant, consensual, or in service to a legitimate purpose. This constitutional safeguard transforms the yearning to move forward from an oppressive past into a matter of self–dignity and autonomy.
Search Engines: Amplifiers of Permanent Memory
The latest, most obvious front line of contest for RTBF is the search engine. In recent years, Indian courts have increasingly ordered Google and other intermediaries to remove or cover-up sensitive documents. The Delhi High Court in the case of Jorawar Singh Mundy v Union of India[2], ruled that in certain situations, privacy outweighs public access on search engines, permitting an acquitted foreign national to have the judgment removed from search results. Names are also often anonymized in cases involving marriage, as well. However, implementing is difficult, removal orders typically are only issued for domains located in India and through anonymizing means other domains are made on the other country-specific pages. It is important to have a system in place that is both effective and acknowledges the global nature of the internet and the need to honour national jurisdiction.
Data Protection: A Statutory Right, Not an Absolute One
RTBF finally got a statutory form with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act)[3]. The individuals may request erasure of the data when its purpose has ceased, the consent is withdrawn, or the processing occurs in violation of the law. It is important to note that the Act does not afford an unlimited right. The erasure may be refused in case of legal obligation or as a means of establishing a legal claim, or for any other purpose as specified by the government. Further, the state may exempt classes of data fiduciaries under the weight of "sovereignty, public order, or foreign relations". The statutory RTBF is thus highly qualified and will be governed by the provisions and decisions of the Data Protection Board.
Free Speech: The Necessary Check
The right to be forgotten is an uncomfortable fit with free speech under Article 19(1)(a) that cannot be overlooked. The right to disseminate and receive information is a pillar of democracy. Journalists, researchers and citizens have a right to have access to accurate records, such as old court rulings and media reports. If the RTBF is broad, it could mean that history will be sanitized, that powerful people will be able to remove the evidence of their misdeeds from public view.
This is a tension which is clearly felt by courts. One test that has emerged in Indian law is that of proportionality and public interest. This is because information that is relevant to a person's private life and does not have any relevance to public debate, and causes genuine psychological or reputational harm, is more likely to be erased or de-indexed. Material focused on public personalities, serious crime or historical significance, however, will receive greater free speech protection. The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while no attempt could be made to rewrite history, RTBF could be invoked to protect an individual from information that was irrelevant, outdated and disproportionately damaging.
Judicial Precedents: A Developing Mosaic
Indian courts have not given the absolute right to be forgotten, but have started considering it as a part of privacy and dignity under Article 21. The movement started with a mild response from the Gujarat High Court in Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs. State of Gujarat (2015)[4], where the court refrained from barring access to a judgment on the basis that it was against the petitioner. In the case of Jorawar Singh Mundy vs. Union of India (2021)[5], the Delhi High Court directed de-indexing of a criminal judgment as the petitioner had been acquitted and is seeing him continue to be visible online was hurting his reputation.
This is also supported by the landmark Judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017)[6] in which privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right and also by R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)[7] which reminds us that privacy is not absolute, it has to be balanced with public records and free speech. Overall, these cases suggest that Indian courts are shifting towards a case-by-case basis: not erasure of history, but limits to its digital visibility, whether by masking, anonymisation or de-indexing, where such continued visibility is not in the public interest and does disproportionate harm.
Conclusion
Every Indian should have the right to erase their digital past but not an absolute one. India's future RTBF will be a calibrated right; it will acknowledge the great dignitary and privacy harms of the permanent digital record, yet make a solid protection of the public's right to know. The DPDP Act provides the legislative skeleton; its flesh and blood will come from the Data Protection Board’s decisions and, ultimately, the Supreme Court’s guidance. India is at a pivotal moment, where the question is whether the internet will continue to be a harsh judge or whether individuals will be able to find some form of redemption.
References
[1] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others. (2017) 10 SCC 1. Supreme Court of India, 24 Aug. 2017. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/. Accessed 7 July 2026.
[2] Jorawer Singh Mundy @ Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3918 of 2021. Delhi High Court, 12 Apr. 2021. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86889244/. Accessed 7 July 2026.
[3] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Act No. 22 of 2023. Parliament of India, 11 Aug. 2023. India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/. Accessed 7 July 2026.
[4] Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2019. Gujarat High Court, 5 Feb. 2015. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38702631/. Accessed 7 July 2026.
[5] Jorawer Singh Mundy @ Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3918 of 2021. Delhi High Court, 12 Apr. 2021. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86889244/. Accessed 7 July 2026.
[6] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others. (2017) 10 SCC 1. Supreme Court of India, 24 Aug. 2017. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/. Accessed 7 July 2026.
[7] R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1994) 6 SCC 632. Supreme Court of India, 7 Oct. 1994. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501107/. Accessed 7 July 2026.