[4th June 2026] The Hindu OpED: Preserving the record: On the right to be forgotten

PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2017] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy Linkage: The question examines the expansion of Article 21 and the constitutional status of informational privacy after the Puttaswamy judgment. The Right to be Forgotten is a direct extension of the right to informational privacy, raising questions about balancing privacy with open justice, transparency, and public access to judicial records.

Mentor’ Comment

A recent Delhi High Court order on the Right to be Forgotten has revived the debate over whether individuals can seek removal of their names from online court records. The case is significant because it brings into direct conflict two constitutional principles, the right to privacy recognised in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) and the principle of open justice. This comes at a time when digitisation and search engines have made judicial records permanently accessible and searchable.

What is the Right to be Forgotten?

1. The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) is the legal concept that empowers individuals to request the removal, erasure, or de-indexing of their personal data from internet searches, databases, and public platforms when that information becomes outdated, irrelevant, or harmful to their reputation. 
2. It is built on the principle of informational self-determination, allowing people to reclaim control over their digital narrative and move on from past events without facing lifelong social or professional stigma.

What is the Open Justice Principle?

1. The Open Justice Principle is a foundational legal rule stating that judicial proceedings and records must be open to the public and the media to guarantee transparency, fairness, and public trust in the legal system. 
2. It is summarized by the classic legal maxim: “Justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

How Has Digitisation Transformed the Debate on Open Justice and Privacy?

1. Digital Permanence: Court records remain searchable indefinitely through search engines and online legal databases.
2. Expanded Accessibility: Judicial records are accessible globally to anyone with internet access.
3. Automated Archiving: Search engines and digital repositories replicate records across multiple platforms.
4. Enhanced Public Scrutiny: Facilitates public understanding of judicial processes and legal developments.
5. Persistent Reputational Impact: Allegations may remain associated with individuals even after acquittal or discharge.

Implication

The digital environment has transformed court publicity from a temporary consequence into a potentially permanent one

Why Does the Right to be Forgotten Conflict with the Principle of Open Justice?

1. Privacy Protection: Enables individuals to exercise control over personal information.
2. Transparency Requirement: Ensures judicial functioning remains open to public scrutiny.
3. Historical Record: Judicial decisions form part of the state’s official record.
4. Democratic Accountability: Open records strengthen public confidence in courts.
5. Freedom of Expression: Access to information supports informed public discourse.

Core Constitutional Tension

Right to Privacy	Open Justice
Protects personal dignity	Ensures transparency
Limits unnecessary exposure	Facilitates public scrutiny
Supports informational autonomy	Preserves public records
Prevents perpetual stigma	Maintains historical accuracy

Why Did the Delhi High Court Favour Greater Privacy Protection?

1. Search Engine Excerpts: Search engines may display isolated portions of judgments without context.
2. Name-Based Discovery: Public access does not necessarily require searching cases through an accused person’s name.
3. Replication Problem: Updating official records may not update copies stored on other websites.
4. Context Loss: Fragmented information can misrepresent judicial outcomes.
5. Digital Harm: Continuous association with allegations may affect reputation despite legal exoneration.

Judicial Concern

The Court recognized that merely updating records may not adequately protect privacy because digital content often persists across multiple platforms.

Is Discoverability the Real Problem, or Is It Incomplete Information?

The core issue is not public access itself but incomplete records.

1. Acquittal Visibility: Searches should reveal both allegations and subsequent acquittals.
2. Contextual Accuracy: Complete judicial history should accompany search results.
3. Information Integrity: Users should receive accurate and updated records.
4. Balanced Disclosure: Transparency should include final outcomes, not merely initial accusations.
5. Digital Correction: Records should evolve with judicial developments.

Example

If an individual is acquitted, anyone accessing the proceedings should also immediately find the acquittal order instead of only the original accusation.

Why Are Judicial Records Treated as Public Records of the State?

1. Official Character: Court records constitute official acts of the State.
2. Institutional Memory: They preserve the history of judicial administration.
3. Legal Precedent: Judicial decisions guide future legal interpretation.
4. Public Accountability: Citizens can assess judicial functioning.
5. Rule of Law: Transparent records strengthen trust in legal institutions.

Can Digital Accuracy Offer a Better Solution than Digital Erasure?

Key Measures

1. Record Updating: Reflect acquittals, discharges, settlements, and final outcomes prominently.
2. Database Synchronisation: Ensure legal repositories regularly update records.
3. Contextual Search Results: Display complete procedural history.
4. Judicial Oversight: Impose obligations on registries and legal information platforms.
5. Responsible Indexing: Ensure search engines provide context alongside judicial records.

Expected Outcome: Protects privacy without undermining transparency or historical recordkeeping.

How Does the European Experience Inform the Debate?

The concept gained massive global prominence following the landmark 2014 Google Spain v. AEPD ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It is now strictly codified under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the “Right to Erasure”

1. European Origin: RTBF emerged in response to persistent digital records.
2. Balancing Test: Privacy claims are assessed against freedom of expression and public interest.
3. Context-Based Approach: No absolute right to deletion exists.
4. Public Interest Exception: Information relevant to public accountability may remain accessible.
5. Proportionality Principle: Competing rights are balanced case-by-case.

Conclusion

The challenge is not whether judicial records should be accessible, but whether they should remain accurate and complete in the digital age. A balanced approach that preserves open justice while ensuring updated and contextualised records can protect both privacy and transparency, thereby strengthening public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.