Right to be Forgotten Recognised as Enforceable Facet of Informational Privacy under Article 21

This batch of petitions was filed by individuals seeking the "Right to be Forgotten" regarding judicial records and news articles accessible via internet search engines

The petitioners included persons acquitted of criminal charges, parties to matrimonial/private disputes, and victims of sexual offences

They contended that the permanent digital availability of these records, despite the conclusion of legal proceedings in their favor, caused "disproportionate and continuing harm" to their reputation, dignity, and life prospects

Procedurally, several respondents (Google, Indian Kanoon, and Media Houses) challenged the maintainability of the writs, arguing they were private entities not performing public functions

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against private entities like search engines and legal databases for the enforcement of the right to privacy

2. Whether the "Right to be Forgotten" is an integral facet of the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution

3. Whether the principle of "Open Justice" and the public's "Right to Know" override an individual's right to seek de-indexing or masking of judicial records in the digital age

4. What are the legal parameters and tests for directing the de-indexing and masking of personal identifiers from digital judicial records

Article 21 of the Constitution, interpreting the right to life to encompass "informational privacy" and dignity

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognized privacy as a fundamental right enforceable against both State and non-State actors

Three-fold Test of Privacy (legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality) from Puttaswamy

Principle of Open Justice as discussed in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI

Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 regarding the obligation of intermediaries to comply with court orders for content restriction

The Court reasoned that while "Open Justice" requires judicial records to be accessible, it does not mandate that an individual’s name acts as a permanent "retrieval key" for commercial search engines to amplify past legal misfortunes

It distinguished between the existence of a record and its name-based digital searchability

Applying the proportionality test, the Court found that in cases of acquittal, discharge, or quashing, the "presumption of innocence" requires that legal exoneration be reflected in the digital persona

For matrimonial and private disputes, the Court held that the "sanctity of family life" outweighs the infinitesimal public interest once the case concludes

However, it carved out exceptions for "absolute bars," holding that the right to be forgotten cannot be claimed by those convicted of serious offences against women/children or breaches of public trust, nor can it shield the public conduct of public figures

It allowed most petitions, directing Google and other search engines to de-index specified URLs and directing "Indian Kanoon" to disable name-based search functionality for those records

It ordered that de-indexing must be done globally across all domains to be effective

The Court dismissed petitions involving recent serious convictions and the public conduct of public figures

Petitioners were granted liberty to seek masking of names from the originating courts; MEITY was directed to ensure compliance within two weeks