Delhi High Court Recognises the Right to be Forgotten: Key Takeaways from Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters
On 29 May 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters, laying down a comprehensive framework governing the “Right to be Forgotten” in India.
The Court disposed of more than 30 connected petitions filed over nearly a decade, the earliest being W.P.(C) 1021/2016. The petitions arose from a wide range of factual situations, including acquittals, discharges, quashing of criminal proceedings, matrimonial disputes, settlements, media reporting and disclosure of personal information in judicial records. The central question before the Court was how to balance informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution against the principles of open justice and public access to judicial records.
Right to be Forgotten as a Facet of Informational Privacy
The Court recognised that the right to privacy under Article 21 includes a right to informational privacy and that the Right to be Forgotten forms part of this constitutional protection.
While acknowledging the importance of open justice and public accessibility of court records, the Court observed that digital publication and search engine technology have fundamentally altered the consequences of public information. The issue, according to the Court, is not merely the existence of judicial records, but their unlimited and perpetual accessibility through name-based internet searches.
The Court therefore sought to balance transparency with dignity, reputation and informational autonomy rather than treating either value as absolute.
De-Indexing Is Not Deletion
A central feature of the judgment is the distinction between removal of information and restriction of discoverability.
The Court clarified that de-indexing does not involve deletion or erasure of judicial records. The underlying judgment remains available on court websites and legal databases and can continue to be accessed through case numbers, citations and other identifiers.
Rather, de-indexing operates by removing specific URLs or records from name-based search results generated by search engines or legal databases. The Court held that this constitutes a proportionate remedy that preserves judicial transparency while mitigating the continuing harm caused by unrestricted digital discoverability.
De-Indexing and Masking: Distinct Remedies
The Court drew an important distinction between de-indexing and masking.
De-indexing operates at the level of search engines and legal database platforms. In the case of search engines such as Google, the remedy involves removal of specified URLs from name-based search results.
Masking operates at the level of the judicial record itself. It involves replacing names and personal identifiers in the publicly accessible version of a judgment with neutral references while preserving the complete unredacted version in court records.
The Court also distinguished between search engines and legal database platforms such as Indian Kanoon. While search engines may be directed to de-index specific results, the Court repeatedly referred to disabling name-based search functionality on Indian Kanoon as the appropriate remedy, reflecting the fact that Indian Kanoon hosts judicial records directly rather than merely indexing third-party content.
The Court’s Three-Part Test for De-Indexing
Rather than adopting an open-ended balancing exercise, the Court articulated a structured framework for determining whether de-indexing should be granted.
The relevant considerations were grouped into three broad tests:
- Character of the Information and Outcome of Proceedings
The Court examined the nature of the information sought to be moderated and the outcome of the underlying proceedings. Particular weight was accorded to situations involving acquittals, discharge, quashing of proceedings, settlements and concluded private disputes.
- Public Role of the Individual
The Court recognised that persons occupying positions of influence or prominence are subject to heightened standards of transparency and accountability. The public role of the individual therefore remains a critical consideration in determining entitlement to relief.
- Accuracy and Continuing Relevance
The Court emphasised that even information that was initially accurate and lawfully published may, with the passage of time, become irrelevant, excessive or no longer necessary for any legitimate purpose. Continuing digital accessibility must therefore be assessed in light of present relevance rather than historical accuracy alone.
Categories Where Relief Was Granted
The Court granted de-indexing relief in a number of situations, including:
- acquittals after trial;
- discharge from criminal proceedings;
- quashing of FIRs and criminal cases;
- certain settlement and compounding matters;
- concluded matrimonial disputes; and
- private civil disputes where no continuing public interest remained.
In several cases, the Court accepted that continued online association with allegations that had ultimately not resulted in conviction caused disproportionate harm to dignity, reputation and informational privacy.
Categories Where Relief Was Refused
The Court also identified categories where de-indexing would not ordinarily be apposite.
These include:
- convictions for offences against women;
- convictions for offences against children;
- convictions involving breach of public trust by public officials or persons occupying fiduciary positions; and
- categories where a continuing and legitimate public interest remains.
Importantly, the Court clarified that these limitations apply equally to requests for masking. The Court expressly rejected the notion that masking is subject to a more permissive standard than de-indexing.
The judgment also demonstrates that settlement-based quashing does not automatically justify relief. In W.P.(C) 9940/2024, the Court declined relief despite settlement and quashing because the petitioner was a public figure and the underlying proceedings involved allegations of sexual offences. The Court held that a continuing public interest remained in accessibility of such material.
The Court similarly declined relief in certain matters involving public figures where the conduct complained of occurred in the public domain.
Masking Orders and Consequential Platform Obligations
One of the most significant practical aspects of the judgment concerns the interaction between masking orders and intermediary obligations.
The Court clarified that a masking order issued by the concerned court constitutes an order of a competent court for the purposes of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
As a consequence:
- search engines such as Google would be required to de-index the masked judgment from name-based search results; and
- legal databases such as Indian Kanoon would be required to disable name-based search functionality in relation to the masked record.
This effectively creates a cascading compliance mechanism whereby a masking order passed by the originating court can trigger corresponding obligations on intermediaries and legal database platforms.
Global Scope of De-Indexing Directions
The Court also addressed the territorial scope of de-indexing directions.
Rejecting the argument that relief should be limited to Indian-domain search results, the Court held that a direction confined to platforms such as google.co.in would be ineffective because users could simply access other versions of the search engine. Accordingly, de-indexing directions may operate across all domains and versions of the relevant search engine to ensure meaningful protection of informational privacy rights.
Separate Protection for Victims of Sexual Offences
An important aspect of the judgment concerns W.P.(C) 9929/2025, which involved publication of a sexual offence victim’s identity on Indian Kanoon.
The Court clarified that relief in such cases does not arise from the right-to-be-forgotten framework or any balancing exercise between privacy and transparency. Instead, disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual offences is independently prohibited by law under Section 228A of the IPC (now Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
Expressing concern that the petitioner had been compelled to approach the Court to enforce a statutory protection, the Court directed Indian Kanoon to implement systems designed to prevent publication of such identities in future. This aspect of the judgment stands apart from the broader informational privacy analysis and rests upon a statutory prohibition against disclosure.
Interaction with the DPDP Act, 2023
Although the judgment is principally grounded in Article 21 and constitutional privacy jurisprudence, it forms part of the broader evolution of informational privacy law following the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
The Court acknowledged the developing statutory framework concerning correction, erasure and control of personal information. In certain matters, the Court also directed parties to pursue available remedies under the applicable statutory framework governing digital content and intermediary regulation.
Practical Implications
The judgment provides a structured pathway for individuals seeking relief against the continuing online accessibility of information relating to concluded legal proceedings. At the same time, it preserves important exceptions where transparency, accountability and public interest considerations remain paramount.
The decision may also have broader implications for legal research practices in India. A substantial portion of legal due diligence, media verification and practical legal research is conducted through party-name searches on search engines and legal databases. To the extent de-indexing and disabling of name-based search functionality become more common, researchers may increasingly need to rely on citations, case numbers and subject-matter searches rather than party names alone.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that petitioners seeking such relief must place complete and updated facts before the Court. In W.P.(C) 11372/2022, relief was declined because the petitioner had not placed the current status of the underlying proceedings on record.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision represents one of the most comprehensive judicial examinations of the Right to be Forgotten in India to date. While the Court stopped short of recognising a right to erase judicial records, it developed a structured framework for limiting the digital discoverability of personal information in appropriate cases.
For individuals who have been acquitted, discharged, exonerated or involved in concluded private disputes, the judgment provides a clearer route to seeking de-indexing and masking relief. Equally, the decision underscores that such relief remains subject to important limitations where public accountability, public safety and continuing public interest demand ongoing accessibility of information.
Unless otherwise specified, the Court directed compliance with its directions within two weeks of the date of judgment.
Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely for legal research purposes and do not constitute legal opinion, legal advice, solicitation, or professional guidance of any nature. The views are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of PJ Law Offices (www.pjlaw.in), its principal, representatives, associates, retainers, affiliates (collectively, “PJLaw”). Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel before acting on any information contained herein. PJLaw makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy or completeness of the contents and expressly disclaims all liability arising from reliance upon or use of the same.
