Right to be forgotten: Delhi High Court orders identity markers removed from orders quashing two FIRs

Two FIRs were registered following the death of the petitioner’s wife: FIR No. 13/2020 under Sections 498A/306/201/34 IPC, and FIR No. 464/2020 under Sections 420/467/471 IPC.

This Court quashed the respective FIRs by orders dated 7 September 2021 and 13 May 2021.

The petitioner sought masking of identity markers in those orders, contending that their online availability caused undue harassment to his minor son and family, and sought permission to approach third-party portals, intermediaries and search engines to host masked versions.

1. Whether the identity markers in orders quashing criminal proceedings should be masked where their continued online accessibility allegedly affects the privacy and dignity of the petitioner’s family.

2. Whether the petitioner may approach third-party portals, intermediaries and search engines to seek masking of the names and identity markers in material relating to the quashed proceedings.

The Court relied on the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing the right to be forgotten.

It applied the principle that, once criminal proceedings have been quashed, continued name-based online accessibility may be disproportionate where it serves no public interest and unduly affects an individual’s privacy and dignity.

The Court drew on ABC v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8113, which recognised the right to be forgotten and the need to balance public access to information against individual privacy, particularly after criminal proceedings have been quashed.

The Court found that both FIRs and the related criminal proceedings had already been quashed.

In those circumstances, it accepted the petitioner’s grievance that continued online availability of the orders with identity markers could cause undue hardship to his minor son and family, while serving no public interest.

Applying the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten, the Court directed masking of the identity markers and permitted the petitioner to seek corresponding action from third-party portals, intermediaries and search engines.

It also permitted the petitioner to approach relevant portals, search engines and intermediaries to host masked versions and seek masking of other material relating to the proceedings that reflects the same identity markers.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.