The Right to Informational Privacy under Article 21 Encompasses De-indexing and Masking of Digital Judicial Records.

This batch of 35 writ petitions was filed by individuals seeking the "Right to be Forgotten".

The petitioners include persons acquitted or discharged in criminal cases, parties to matrimonial/private civil disputes, and individuals whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records.

They alleged that the permanent digital accessibility of these records via search engines (like Google) and legal databases (like Indian Kanoon) caused disproportionate harm to their reputation, dignity, and life prospects.

The procedural history reflects various interim orders and the development of masking software by the Delhi High Court Registry.

Respondents, including Google and media houses, contested maintainability and argued that judicial records are public documents.

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.

Whether the "Right to be Forgotten" is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

How to balance the individual’s right to informational privacy with the principle of "Open Justice" and the public's right to know in the digital age.

What are the legal parameters and tests for granting the relief of "de-indexing" or "masking" of judicial records.

The Court primarily relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognized privacy (including informational privacy) as a fundamental right enforceable against both State and non-State actors.

It applied the "Three-fold Test" for invasions of privacy: legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.

The court distinguished the principle of "Open Justice" established in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, noting it is not absolute.

Statutory reliance was placed on Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 regarding intermediary obligations and Section 228A of the IPC regarding the anonymity of sexual offence victims.

The Court reasoned that while judicial records are public, the "permanence" of the internet alters the equilibrium between transparency and privacy.

It held that search engines are not "passive" but "active processors" of personal data, as their algorithms aggregate and rank information for commercial gain.

The Court analyzed that "Open Justice" requires records to be accessible, but does not mandate they be "name-searchable" via commercial engines indefinitely.

Applying the proportionality test, the Court found that in cases of acquittal, discharge, or quashing, the "presumption of innocence" outweighs the public interest in digital searchability.

Conversely, it established "absolute bars" for convictions involving crimes against women/children or breach of public trust, where public interest remains paramount.

Google and search engines must "de-index" (remove from name-based results) specific URLs for petitioners with acquittals, discharges, or matrimonial settlements; Indian Kanoon must disable "name-based search functionality" for those records while keeping the content accessible via citations; Petitioners may seek "masking" (redaction of names) from the originating courts.

Relief was denied to public figures regarding public conduct and to those with serious criminal convictions.

MEITY was directed to ensure compliance within two weeks.