📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—right-to-be-forgotten-de-index-court-records-india [2026/07/22 17:45] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-title=(Right to Be Forgotten Remove Court Records India)&metatag-description=(You can sometimes get your name de-indexed or masked in old court records, especially after acquittal or discharge. Delhi High Court called it part of Article 21.)&metatag-keywords=(right to be forgotten India, de-index court records, remove name from Indian Kanoon, informational privacy Article 21)&metatag-robots=(index,follow)&metatag-og:title=(Right to Be Forgotten: Remove Old Court Records from Google)&metatag-og:description=(You can sometimes get your name de-indexed or masked in old court records, especially after acquittal or discharge. Delhi High Court called it part of Article 21.)&metatag-og:type=(article)}}
  
 +====== Right to Be Forgotten: Remove Old Court Records from Google ======
 +
 +
 +{{ :social:auto:right-to-be-forgotten-de-index-court-records-india.png?direct&1200 |Right to Be Forgotten: Remove Old Court Records from Google — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +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.
 +
 +<WRAP center round box 100%>
 +**Quick Reply:** In some cases yes, especially if you were acquitted, discharged, or the matter is old and settled. The Delhi High Court has held that the right to be forgotten is part of informational privacy under Article 21, and that de-indexing or masking your name in court records can be a valid remedy. It is not automatic, and it does not apply where there is genuine public interest.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +If you are short on time, jump to the step-by-step block below and the "Who is most likely to succeed" section.
 +
 +===== How to seek de-indexing or masking of your name =====
 +
 +There is no single all-India form or portal for this. The exact process varies by High Court. The practical route is the following.
 +
 +  - **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.
 +  - **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.
 +  - **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.
 +  - **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.
 +
 +===== What the Delhi High Court actually held =====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== Who is most likely to succeed =====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== When courts refuse =====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== How this differs from DPDP erasure and RTI =====
 +
 +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 [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/dpdp-right-to-erasure-correction-personal-data-2025|DPDP right to erasure and correction of personal data]] and the [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/dpdp-act-2023-complete-guide|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 [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/quash-fir-section-528-bnss-high-court-india|quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court]].
 +
 +For the bigger picture on your information rights, see [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/book|The RTI Playbook]].
 +
 +===== Frequently asked questions =====
 +
 +==== Can I remove my name from Indian Kanoon directly? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== Does the right to be forgotten apply if I was convicted? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== Which court do I approach? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== How long does de-indexing take? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== Does de-indexing delete the judgment? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== What to do in the next 30 minutes =====
 +
 +  * 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.
 +
 +===== Sources =====
 +
 +  * 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).
 +
 +===== Related reading =====
 +
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/dpdp-right-to-erasure-correction-personal-data-2025|DPDP right to erasure and correction of your personal data]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/dpdp-act-2023-complete-guide|Complete guide to the DPDP Act, 2023]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/quash-fir-section-528-bnss-high-court-india|How to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS]]
 +===== Right to be Forgotten: How to de-index court records and personal information from Google in India? =====
 +
 +The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) in India allows individuals to request removal of personal information from search results. Here is the complete guide:
 +
 +  - **Step 1: Legal basis.** (a) the Right to be Forgotten is recognized under: (i) the DPDP Act 2023 (Section 12 — right to erasure), (ii) the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment (2017) — privacy as a fundamental right, (iii) the Delhi High Court's judgments in Karat v. Sahara (2010) and Vasunathan v. Google (2017), (b) the right is NOT absolute — it must be balanced with: (i) freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)), (ii) public interest, (iii) the right to information.
 +  - **Step 2: What can be de-indexed?** (a) search results that contain: (i) personal information (name, photo, address, phone number), (ii) court records (if the case is closed and the acquittal is final), (iii) news articles that are outdated or inaccurate, (iv) revenge porn or intimate images, (v) defamatory content, (b) the content must be: (i) inaccurate, (ii) irrelevant, (iii) outdated, (iv) excessive, (v) causing harm to the individual's privacy.
 +  - **Step 3: How to request Google.** (a) go to Google's removal request page (support.google.com/websearch), (b) select "Remove information from Google", (c) select the reason: (i) "Content contains personal information", (ii) "Content is outdated or irrelevant", (iii) "Content is defamatory", (d) provide: (i) the URL to be removed, (ii) your name and contact, (iii) the reason for removal, (iv) evidence (e.g., court order, acquittal certificate), (e) Google reviews the request and removes the URL (if it meets the criteria).
 +  - **Step 4: Court order approach.** (a) file a petition before the High Court (under Article 226 — writ jurisdiction) or a civil court: (i) seeking an order to remove the content from the website, (ii) seeking an order to de-index the URL from Google/Bing, (b) the court considers: (i) the right to privacy of the petitioner, (ii) the public interest in the information, (iii) the age of the information, (iv) the accuracy of the information, (c) if the court orders removal: Google and the website must comply.
 +  - **Step 5: De-indexing court records.** (a) if you were acquitted in a criminal case: you can request the court to: (i) remove the case records from the court's website (ecourts.gov.in), (ii) direct Google to de-index the case details, (b) the Delhi High Court (in Vasunathan v. Google) directed Google to de-index a court order (the petitioner was acquitted but the order was still appearing in search results), (c) the court may direct: (i) the registry to remove the order from the website, (ii) Google to de-index the URL, (iii) the publisher to remove the article.
 +  - **Step 6: DPDP Act 2023.** (a) under Section 12 of the DPDP Act: the data principal (individual) has the right to erasure of personal data, (b) the data fiduciary (the website/platform) must erase the data if: (i) the purpose for which it was collected is fulfilled, (ii) the individual withdraws consent, (iii) the Data Protection Board orders erasure, (c) the Data Protection Board can penalize non-compliance (up to Rs 250 crore), (d) the DPDP Act is now notified (2025) and the Board is being constituted.
 +  - **Step 7: Common issues.** (a) Google refuses to remove (file a court order — Google complies with court orders), (b) the website refuses to remove (file a court order against the website), (c) the content is on a foreign website (file a court order and request Google to de-index globally), (d) the content is a news article (the court balances privacy with press freedom — news articles are harder to remove), (e) the content is a court order (courts are increasingly willing to de-index acquittal orders).
 +
 +See [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/dpdp-children-data-parental-consent-rules-2025|DPDP Children]] and [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/find-pio-2026|Find PIO]].
 +
 +{{tag>right to be forgotten india de-index court records google dpdp act 2023 privacy puttaswamy 2026}}