The Supreme Court of India is set to examine the right to be forgotten in the coming months. It also said that the Delhi High Court’s 2024 order directing The Indian Express to remove a particular news report should not set a precedent in similar cases, according to a report by LiveLaw.
“Right to privacy does not include a right to erase history,” – Indian Express in Supreme Court of India.
Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the above observation while referring to the Puttaswamy judgment, which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
The bench also asked:
“What is the right to be forgotten? How does the right to be forgotten relate to Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?.”
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees citizens the freedom of speech and expression, while Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court’s hearing is significant because its judgment could set a precedent on the right-to-be-forgotten doctrine in India, particularly in the absence of a clear constitutional framework governing it.
“A wall of privacy is sought to be erected so that the citizens will not have access to information. It’s not good for democracy.” – Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
According to Bar & Bench, the case began with a defamation suit filed by a man whom the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had previously investigated and arrested in the Moser Baer scam. The court later discharged him and closed the case against him.
After the acquittal, he moved a civil court seeking the removal of three news reports published between 2020 and 2024 on The Indian Express’s digital platform that reported those developments. As per the Indian Express report, the content the petitioner sought to remove spanned over four years, which were uploaded on:
The Indian Express reported on these developments, citing public records, including the Enforcement Directorate’s press releases and court proceedings.
India does not have a standalone legal framework defining the right to be forgotten. The closest equivalent is found in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which provides for a right to erasure.
This is a user-initiated right that places obligations on data fiduciaries (entities that collect and process personal data). Individuals may seek deletion of their personal data if:
However, Europe has a more clearly defined framework. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the right to be forgotten, formally termed the right to erasure, allows individuals to request deletion of personal data without undue delay in specific circumstances.
If an individual has made personal data public, data controllers must take reasonable steps to inform other entities processing that data to erase it, including removing links or copies.
The data owners can refuse to delete the particular data if they want to uphold freedom of expression and information:
“The right to control one’s data is meaningless if people cannot take action when they no longer consent to processing, when there are significant errors within the data, or if they believe information is being stored unnecessarily. In these cases, an individual can request that the data be erased. But this is not an absolute right. If it were, the critics who argue that the right to be forgotten amounts to nothing more than a rewriting of history would be correct.” – EU’s GDPR
Indian courts have dealt with right-to-be-forgotten claims in several recent cases:
November 2025: The Patiala House Court ordered Google to remove links to news reports and Indian Kanoon court records relating to a banker wrongly arrested in the Moser Baer case and later acquitted, citing harm to dignity and privacy.
March 2025: The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the removal of the petitioner’s name from court proceedings related to an FIR, observing that charges should not continue to haunt individuals after exoneration.
February 2025: The Rajasthan High Court held that juveniles have an “absolute right” to be forgotten under the Juvenile Justice Act to protect their future prospects.
July 2024: The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order directing Indian Kanoon to remove a judgment on right-to-be-forgotten grounds. The Chief Justice reportedly observed that online reporters are entitled to publish court judgments as they are.
