Delhi HC Affirms Jurisdiction Over De-Indexing Pleas in Settled Matrimonial Disputes

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, in Kokkanti Venkata Maheswara Reddy v. Google LLC (2026), held that the Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to hear a plea seeking de-indexing of online reports and videos relating to a settled matrimonial dispute, reaffirming that the right to be forgotten is a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21. 

What was the Background of  Kokkanti Venkata Maheswara Reddy v. Google LLC (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a serving IPS officer, had been the subject of widely circulated online content arising from a matrimonial dispute with his wife. 
• An FIR had initially been registered pursuant to his wife's complaint, but the dispute was later amicably settled, following which the Telangana High Court quashed the criminal proceedings in 2024. 
• Despite the settlement and quashing, several news outlets and digital platforms continued to host and circulate content identifying him as an IPS trainee, which he contended damaged his professional standing and personal privacy. 
• The petitioner sought directions to Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and other platforms to remove, delete, and de-index the impugned URLs, and also proposed use of hash-matching technology to prevent future re-publication of the same content. 
• Google LLC objected to the maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court, contending that since the petitioner resided in Telangana and much of the content was in Telugu, the Telangana High Court alone had jurisdiction.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the objection to territorial jurisdiction: The Court rejected the contention that the dispute was confined to Telugu-language publications, noting that several English-language reports by national media outlets — including The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV, and News18 — were accessible across the country, including within the NCT of Delhi, where the respondent intermediary platforms also have their presence. 
• On the cause of action arising within Delhi: The Court held that since the impugned content was accessible and the respondent platforms operated within Delhi's territorial limits, it could not be said that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. 
• On the right to be forgotten as part of Article 21: The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, reiterating that the right to be forgotten flows from the right to privacy under Article 21, and that individuals who have been acquitted, discharged, or whose disputes have been settled are entitled to seek removal, masking, or de-indexing of their names from digitised court records and search engine results. 
• On the relief granted: The Court issued notice to the respondents, including Google LLC and YouTube LLC, and directed them to file counter-affidavits. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 21, 2026. 

What is the Right to be Forgotten? 

• Definition: The right to be forgotten allows individuals to seek removal of their personal data from digital platforms when such data is outdated, irrelevant, or harmful to their privacy. 
• European Origin: The right was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2014 in the Google Spain case, which required search engines to remove inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive personal data upon request, particularly where information is no longer relevant with the passage of time. 
• GDPR Recognition: In the EU, the right is codified under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), grounded in the principle of informational self-determination and control over one's personal data. 
• Global Adoption: Similar protections have been adopted in Canada, the United Kingdom, Argentina, and Japan; a 2023 Canadian court ruling upheld the right to demand search-result blocking of personal data. 
• California Model: The 2015 Online Eraser law allows minors to remove posted information, while the 2023 DELETE Act extends a similar right to adults against data brokers. 
• Position in India — No Standalone Statute: India currently has no dedicated legislative framework for the right to be forgotten, though the concept finds reference through privacy and digital rights jurisprudence. 
• Puttaswamy Recognition (2017): In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, implicitly encompassing the right to be forgotten, while clarifying that the right is not absolute and would not apply where public interest, public health, archiving, research, or legal claims are involved. 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Recognises a right to "erasure," though its applicability to court records and other public data remains legally unsettled. 
• IT Rules, 2021: Require intermediaries to remove or disable access to privacy-violating content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. 
• Judicial Precedents:  
  • Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Recognised the "right to be let alone" but held that published court records remain a legitimate subject of public comment. 
  • Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat (2017) – Gujarat High Court declined to remove acquittal details from public records, holding that court orders must remain accessible. 
  • Orissa High Court (2020) – In a case involving "revenge porn," called for wider debate on the right, noting the complexity of implementing it. 
  • Delhi High Court (2021) – Extended the right in a criminal matter, permitting removal of search results to protect the petitioner's social and career prospects. 
  • Supreme Court (July 2022) – Directed the registry to devise a mechanism for removing personal details of a couple involved in a matrimonial dispute from search engines. 
  • Kerala High Court (December 2023) – Held that the right cannot be applied to ongoing proceedings, citing open justice concerns, while noting that legislative clarity is needed. 
  • Himachal Pradesh High Court (July 2024) – Directed redaction of both accused and victim names in a rape case following acquittal, holding that the stigma of accusation should not persist.