Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that right to be forgotten is a part of right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).       

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of ABC v. State & Anr. 

What was the Background of ABC v. State & Anr. Case?  

• A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking directions upon the Court Registry to mask his name from the orders and pleadings filed in a criminal case. 
• The aforesaid proceedings against the man had been quashed and hence he presented himself before the Delhi High Court. 
• His counsel argued that irreparable damage would be caused to him and his social life or career prospects would be hampered. 
• He argued that he was entitled to protection under ‘right to privacy’ and ‘right to forgotten’ which has been well defined is recognized as a fundamental right. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court directed the removal of the names of both the businessman and the complainant from case records and search results. 
• The Court allowed the businessman to approach portals and public search engines to mask the judgment by replacing names with anonymized identifiers. 
• Justice Mahajan emphasized that social media platforms and search engines are expected to honor the principles of the "Right to Privacy" and the "Right to be Forgotten." 
• The Court also advised removing any additional material related to the criminal case to protect the privacy of the involved parties.

What is Right to be Forgotten?

Meaning: 

• The Right to be forgotten gives the individuals the right to have their private information removed from the internet, websites or any other public platforms under special circumstances. 
• This right is also called the ‘Right to erasure’. 
• The policy behind the rule of right to erasure is that whoever is using data has volunteer consent from data owner and hence when the consent is withdrawn the owner has the right to have his data erased. 

Historical Evolution: 

• Right to be forgotten can be traced back to the French jurisprudence on the ‘Right to oblivion’. 
• In 1998, Mario Costeja Gonz’lez a Spaniard had run into financial difficulties and hence advertised a property for auction, the advertisement ended up on the internet and remained there even after all her financial problems were fixed.  
• Aggrieved by the severe damage in reputation, the matter was ultimately taken by Mario to the Court, and this gave birth to the concept of ‘Right to be Forgotten’.   
• The European Court of Justice held against the giant search engine Google and stated that under certain circumstances the people of the European Union could have their information removed from the search results and public records databases. 

The Position Globally 

• European Union (EU) 
  • The EU introduced right to be forgotten in the year 2014 and the legislation is the part of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 
  • The criteria for right to be forgotten in EU includes: 
    • Data no longer needed for the purpose it was collected. 
    • The individual withdraws consent for the data and there is no lawful basis for contradicting this 
    • Personal data is being used for marketing purposes and an individual objects to it. 
  • The requests for deleting the personal data can be denied on the following grounds: 
    • Data being used to exercise freedom of speech and expression.’ 
    • Data being used to perform a task carried out in public interest or when exercising the official authority of the organization. 
    • Data processed is necessary for public health purposes and serves the public interest.  
• United States of America 
  • In U.S. such laws which pertain to right to be forgotten would violate the First Amendment. 
  • This is because the US Supreme Court in the case of Florida Star v. BJF (1989) held that first amendment’s protection for a free press prevents any law that would ban publication of truthful or embarrassing facts as long as the information is legally obtained. 
  • In the case of Martin v. Hearst Corporation (2015) the Connecticut Court held that “historically accurate news accounts” cannot be removed.  

What are the Landmark Judgments on Right to be Forgotten in India? 

• Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar General (2017) 
  • The Karnataka Court in this case observed that in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape and affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned ‘right to be forgotten’ as a trend should be followed. 
• X v. The India Today Group and Ors (2024) 
  • The Delhi High Court issued a John Doe order to remove news articles and social media posts on X (formerly Twitter) about a businessman. 
  • The posts and articles pertained to a criminal case filed against him in 2018, despite his honorable acquittal the following year. 
  • Justice Vikas Mahajan emphasized that the right to privacy of the plaintiff takes precedence over the press's freedom of expression in this case. 
• Justice KS Puttaswamy & Ors v. Union of India (2017)  
  • The Supreme Court in this case recognized ‘Right to be forgotten’ as a part of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court acknowledged this right but clarified that it should not be absolute and outlined scenarios where this right may not apply such as for public interest, public health, archiving, research etc. 
  • The Court held that the recognition of such a right would only mean that an individual should be able to remove their personal data when it is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate purpose.