A single old judgment, a quashed FIR, or a news report about a case you were acquitted in can follow you online for years, surfacing whenever an employer, a prospective spouse’s family, or a bank searches your name. The right to be forgotten is the developing legal claim that, in appropriate cases, such personal information should no longer be indexed against your name. It is real but not absolute — Indian courts decide it case by case, weighing your dignity against the public’s right to know. This guide covers where the right comes from, the latest rulings, the statutory erasure right under the DPDP Act 2023, the tension with open justice, and how to request de-indexing.

The constitutional basis: Article 21 and Puttaswamy

There is no standalone statute that names a “right to be forgotten” as a fundamental right. Its anchor is Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty), read together with the nine-judge Supreme Court decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. Puttaswamy expressly recognised informational privacy as a facet of Article 21 and discussed the permanence of digital memory — the idea that a person should be able to evolve and not be defined forever by their past. Several judges referred approvingly to the right to be forgotten, while cautioning that it must be balanced against competing interests like free expression and the public record.

That balancing caveat is the heart of every case that follows: privacy is fundamental, but so is open justice.

The landmark Delhi High Court ruling (2026)

The most detailed Indian framework to date is the Delhi High Court’s decision in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026:DHC:4891), delivered by Justice Sachin Datta on 29 May 2026 (made public on 1 June 2026). The 144-page judgment decided a batch of more than 35 petitions — some pending since 2016 — from people who had been acquitted, discharged, had FIRs quashed, or settled matrimonial disputes, yet whose names kept surfacing in search results tied to closed cases.

Key holdings:

The right to be forgotten is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21.
Courts can intervene where the continued availability of personal information causes disproportionate prejudice to a person’s privacy, dignity and reputation.
The court drew a crucial distinction between de-indexing and deletion. De-indexing does not erase the judgment — the reasoning, findings and law stay public and remain accessible through case numbers and neutral citations. What shrinks is name-based discoverability: searching the person’s name no longer summons the record.
It directed search engines (including Google) and legal databases (including Indian Kanoon) to disable name-based search for specified judgments, orders and news articles, and laid down guidelines for masking personal identifiers in court records.

The relief was aimed mainly at cases ending in acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement, and cases of a purely private nature (such as matrimonial matters).

Earlier High Court rulings

This did not appear from nowhere. Earlier decisions built the ground:

Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2021): An American citizen of Indian origin was acquitted under the NDPS Act (acquittal upheld in 2013), but the judgment kept harming his career. The court granted interim protection, directing Google and Indian Kanoon to remove/block the judgment from name searches, noting the “irreparable prejudice” to his social life and career prospects.
Karnataka High Court (2017): In a sensitive matter involving a woman, the Registry was directed to ensure that an internet search would not reflect the woman’s name, expressly citing the Western “right to be forgotten” trend for cases affecting the modesty and reputation of women.
Orissa High Court (2020): Hearing a bail matter where intimate images of a rape victim had been uploaded to social media, the court called for statutory recognition of the right to be forgotten to protect victims’ privacy.

These cases also show the strongest, least controversial application of the right: protecting victims of sexual offences, whose identities are in any event protected by law.

The statutory route: DPDP Act 2023, Section 12

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) gives the first express statutory handle. Section 12 grants a Data Principal (you) the right to correction, completion, updating and erasure of personal data processed by a Data Fiduciary (the website or platform), once the purpose of processing is served or consent is withdrawn — unless retention is required by law.

Two important limits:

It targets data fiduciaries, not the courts. Erasure can be sought from private platforms and publishers; it does not let you delete a court’s official record.
Open-record exceptions survive. The Act preserves carve-outs for legal compliance, court orders and public interest, and is subject to the Right to Information Act.

The operational impact also depends on the DPDP Rules, which were notified in stages through 2025-2026, so the practical erasure-request machinery is only now maturing. For the broader privacy backdrop, see our note on why India’s privacy law needs both reform and improvement.

The tension with open justice

There is no free pass, and the Supreme Court has itself struck a cautious note. In a matter arising from the AgustaWestland proceedings, the Supreme Court stayed orders that had directed removal of news reports and judicial records from the public domain on a claimed right to be forgotten, observing that obfuscating court records can have serious implications for the public record and that the right cannot apply automatically to ongoing proceedings.

Even the 2026 Delhi judgment has divided the bar. Critics argue that acquittal is not the same as innocence — cases collapse for many reasons — and that a broad de-indexing regime could hide genuine warnings about repeat offenders. Supporters counter that de-indexing preserves the record (citations still work) while sparing people perpetual reputational harm. The takeaway for any applicant: expect a fact-specific balancing exercise, not a guaranteed result.

Factors courts weigh

Courts typically consider:

Outcome of the case — acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement weighs in your favour; conviction generally does not.
Nature of the matter — private/matrimonial and victim-protection cases are stronger; matters of genuine public interest (public office, large-scale fraud) are weaker.
Time elapsed and whether the information is still relevant.
Disproportionate harm to livelihood, dignity and reputation.
The narrowest remedy — de-indexing or masking, rather than wholesale deletion.

How to request de-indexing or erasure — practical steps

Gather the record. Identify the exact URLs, the judgment/order with its case number and neutral citation, and the outcome (acquittal/discharge/quashing/settlement order).
Send a takedown/erasure request to the platform. Approach the search engine, news outlet or legal database directly. Under Section 12 DPDP, a private data fiduciary can be asked to erase or de-index personal data; many platforms also have their own removal forms.
Use Google’s legal-removal tools where the URL is indexed, citing the court order or de-indexing direction.
Apply to the court. If the platform refuses or the record is a judicial one, file a writ petition (Article 226) before the High Court (or a suitable application in the original case) seeking masking and de-indexing. Plead Puttaswamy, Article 21, and the Delhi High Court framework, and ask for the narrowest relief — masking of identifiers and de-indexing, not deletion.
Escalate to the Data Protection Board for non-compliance with a valid DPDP erasure request, once the Board is operational under the notified Rules.

Each of these steps turns on the specific facts and the right remedy. Our civil lawyers in Delhi can assess whether your case fits the recognised categories, draft the platform requests, and pursue a writ for de-indexing if needed.

Bottom line

India now recognises a right to be forgotten as part of informational privacy under Article 21, reinforced by Puttaswamy, sharpened by the Delhi High Court’s 2026 de-indexing framework, and backed (for private platforms) by Section 12 of the DPDP Act. But it is a balanced, case-by-case right, not an eraser for the public record — open justice still matters, and the Supreme Court has warned against scrubbing court records wholesale. Your prospects depend on the outcome of your case, its nature, and the harm you can show.

This is general information, not legal advice. Consult our lawyers for advice on your situation.

Right to Be Forgotten in India: De-indexing Court Records