Right to Informational Privacy Entitles Individuals to De-indexing of Judicial Records Following Acquittal or Matrimonial Settlement.

A batch of petitions was filed by individuals seeking the removal, de-indexing, or masking of their names from digital judicial records and search engine results.

The petitioners included persons acquitted of criminal charges, parties to matrimonial disputes, and individuals whose names appeared incidentally in court orders.

They contended that the perpetual accessibility of these records via name-based internet searches caused irreparable harm to their reputation, dignity, and career prospects, long after the conclusion of legal proceedings.

While some respondents (Google, Indian Kanoon) argued they were merely passive intermediaries and that court records are public documents, the petitioners invoked the "Right to be Forgotten" as a facet of the right to privacy.

1. Whether the "Right to be Forgotten" is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and a facet of the right to informational privacy.

2. Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 lies against private entities like search engines and legal databases for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

3. How to balance the individual’s right to privacy against the principle of "Open Justice" and the public's right to information in the digital age.

Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which established privacy as a fundamental right encompassing "informational privacy" and the "right to be forgotten".

Principle of "Open Justice" from Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, noting it is not absolute and subject to exceptions.

Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, regarding an intermediary's obligation to follow court orders for content removal.

Section 228A of the IPC (now Section 72 BNS) which mandates the non-disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences.

The court reasoned that while judicial records are public, their "indiscriminate amplification" via commercial search engines transforms them into tools of perpetual stigma.

Distinguishing between "open justice" and "name-based searchability," the court held that transparency is satisfied if records remain accessible by case number or citation, without requiring an individual's name to serve as a universal digital key.

The court rejected Google’s claim of being a "passive" entity, identifying it as an active processor of data that determines information hierarchy through algorithms.

Applying a proportionality test, the court determined that in cases of acquittal, discharge, or matrimonial disputes, the state’s interest in transparency is outweighed by the individual’s right to move on from past legal travails.

However, it carved out exceptions for "public figures" acting in their official capacity and persons convicted of serious crimes or breach of public trust, where public interest remains high.

It directed search engines (Google) to “de-index” specific URLs and legal databases (Indian Kanoon) to “disable name-based search functionality” for petitioners who were acquitted, discharged, or involved in settled matrimonial/civil disputes.

Petitions from public figures seeking to erase news of drunken behavior or individuals seeking to hide serious convictions were dismissed.

The court further emphasized the mandatory masking of sexual offence victims' identities as an absolute statutory right.

Relief of "masking" identifiers in the actual court records was relegated to the respective originating courts, while search engines were ordered to comply globally with the de-indexing directions within two weeks.