Right to Be Forgotten: Remove Old Court Records from Google

If an old court case shows your name on Google or Indian Kanoon, you can sometimes ask a court to de-index or mask it, but only in limited situations. This right comes from your fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, not from the RTI Act or the DPDP Act. The Delhi High Court recognised it in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 1021/2016), decided on 29 May 2026 by Justice Sachin Datta.

If you are short on time, jump to the step-by-step block below and the “Who is most likely to succeed” section.

There is no single all-India form or portal for this. The exact process varies by High Court. The practical route is the following.

1. Identify the exact URLs. List every web page where your name appears in connection with the old case. This usually includes the judgment page on Indian Kanoon, the court website, and the Google search results that point to them. Save the links and take screenshots.
2. File an application before the relevant High Court. Approach the High Court that decided or has jurisdiction over the matter. You can file a writ petition or a miscellaneous application asking the court to protect your privacy. Many people do this through a lawyer because the framing of the privacy claim matters.
3. Ask for a specific remedy. Seek an order for de-indexing (removing the page from search engine results) or masking (hiding or redacting your name in the published judgment). The court decides which remedy fits your facts. You may also ask the court registry how it handles redaction of names in published orders.
4. Send the order to the search engine and the website. Forward a certified copy of the order to Google and to the host of the page, such as Indian Kanoon, with a written request to comply. Keep proof of when you sent it and follow up if there is no response.

Note: the exact procedure, the bench, and the type of petition can differ between High Courts. Confirm the local practice with a lawyer or the High Court registry before you file.

The Court framed the core question as whether a person whose name appears in judicial records that show up in internet searches can, on the strength of the right to informational privacy under Article 21, ask for de-indexing.

It held that the right to be forgotten is a facet of that informational privacy, and recognised de-indexing and masking as permissible remedies. At the same time, it carved out exceptions for matters of genuine public interest. So the right is real, but not absolute. Court records are public by design and open justice is itself a constitutional value, so the Court balances your privacy against the public interest case by case.

You have a stronger case for de-indexing or masking when:

• You were acquitted or discharged, and the case still surfaces against your name.
• The matter is old and settled, with no continuing public relevance.
• You were a minor at the relevant time.
• You were a victim or a witness, not the accused, and publication exposes you to harm or stigma.
• The case involved sensitive personal facts, such as family, matrimonial, or sexual matters.

In these situations the privacy interest is high and the ongoing public interest in linking your name is usually low.

Courts are far less likely to order de-indexing or masking when:

• There is genuine public interest in the information, for example a conviction in a serious or public-facing matter.
• The matter is recent and still relevant to the public.
• You hold or held public office, and the record relates to that role.
• Removing the record would defeat open justice or hide information the public legitimately needs.

The right to be forgotten does not let you erase a true and lawful record simply because it is inconvenient.

This is the part people get wrong. The right discussed here is grounded in Article 21, the constitutional right to privacy, and is enforced by going to a court.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act gives you a separate statutory right to correction and erasure of personal data held by a data fiduciary, with its own conditions. For that route, see our guide to the DPDP right to erasure and correction of personal data and the complete guide to the DPDP Act, 2023.

The RTI Act is the opposite tool. It helps you obtain information from public authorities. It does not remove your name from court records, so do not file an RTI to get yourself forgotten.

If your underlying worry is a criminal case itself, and not just the search result, read how to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court.

For the bigger picture on your information rights, see The RTI Playbook.

Not just by asking. Indian Kanoon publishes public court judgments. The reliable route is a court order for masking or de-indexing, which you then send to the platform and the search engine. A court order carries far more weight than a plain request.

Usually not, especially for a serious or recent conviction where there is genuine public interest. The Delhi High Court carved out a public interest exception. Acquittal, discharge, or an old and settled matter gives you a much stronger case than a standing conviction.

Generally the High Court connected to the case or with jurisdiction over the matter. The exact type of petition and the procedure vary between High Courts. Confirm the local practice with a lawyer or the High Court registry before filing.

There is no fixed timeline. It depends on how quickly the court hears your application, the order it passes, and how fast the search engine or website acts on the order. Treat it as a matter of months, not days, and keep records of every step.

Not always. De-indexing removes the page from search engine results so it stops appearing when someone searches your name. Masking hides or redacts your name within the judgment. The judgment itself may still exist on the court record. The remedy depends on what the court orders.

• Search your own name and note every URL where the old case appears.
• Take dated screenshots of each result as evidence.
• Write down the case number, the court, and the outcome, such as acquittal or discharge.
• Note whether you were the accused, a victim, a witness, or a minor at the time.
• Speak to a lawyer about filing before the relevant High Court, since framing the privacy claim correctly is what decides the outcome.

• Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India and Ors, Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 1021/2016, decided 29 May 2026 (Justice Sachin Datta): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4658201/
• Constitution of India, Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty, including informational privacy).

• DPDP right to erasure and correction of your personal data
• Complete guide to the DPDP Act, 2023
• How to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS