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

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

The Court held that the "Right to be Forgotten" is an intrinsic facet of the right to informational privacy under Article 21.

It also directed

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.

01Facts

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

¶ 3

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.

¶ 5–66

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.

¶ 2, 122

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

¶ 117–119

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

¶ 78–114

02Issues

i.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.

¶ 120, 124

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

¶ 129, 141

iii.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.

¶ 147, 178

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

¶ 195, 220

03Law Applied

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.

¶ 122, 135

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

¶ 179

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.

¶ 149, 151

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.

¶ 125, 275

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 72

04Reasoning

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

¶ 152

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

¶ 172–176

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

¶ 156

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.

¶ 199, 216

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

¶ 206