Balancing Privacy And Public Interest - Examining The Right To Be Forgotten In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:25:19.181106+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:54.694+00:00

BALANCING PRIVACY AND PUBLIC INTEREST:

EXAMINING THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN INDIA

Ms. Resmi C S, Assistant Professor of Law, Mar Gregorious College of Law, Thiruvanthapuram

ABSTRACT

The conceptualisation of the “Right to Privacy” as an essential aspect of the “Right to Life” has given rise to the notion of the “Right to be Forgotten”. The Constitution of India enshrines the profound right to life within Article 211, in conjunction with Article 322. The right to be forgotten can be understood as a manifestation of the right to erase, signifying that any and all records or sources that impact human existence may be subject to erasure3. This research investigates the relationship between the “right to privacy” and the “right to be forgotten”, along with their respective extensions. This research seeks to elucidate the concept of the right to be forgotten, examining its necessity and relevance within the contemporary digital landscape.

1 INDIA CONST. art. 21.

2 INDIA CONST. art. 32.

3 General Data Protection Regulation (EU) No. 2016/ 679, 2016, art. 17, 19.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The “Right to be Forgotten” is becoming more important in the realm of data privacy. This is a reflection of the rising concerns expressed over the ability of individuals to exercise control over their personal information in the modern digital world. By enabling people to make a request to have their personal information removed from online platforms, the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) helps to reduce the amount of content that is left on the internet that is either irrelevant or outdated. This particular right, which was first acknowledged and outlined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU), has provoked a significant amount of discussion all over the world over the implications it has for things like freedom of speech, privacy, and the common good.

The proliferation of digital footprints has given rise to the need for the creation of tools that may aid people in the management of their presence on the internet. 4 Part III, Articles 12 to 355, of the Indian Constitution is where essential fundamental rights are emphasised and consolidated. Essentially, it is the very core of human advancement. Privacy and life are inextricably linked and mutually rely on one another. People now have the opportunity to erase their personal information from the internet under certain conditions, according to new interpretations of the rights linked with the “right to privacy” that have been disregarded in recent years. There is also a connection between the rights and the erasing of rights, which is an essential component of digital participation.

The recognition of the right occurred in the European Union in 2014, which coincided with the increasing dependence on the internet for the growth of society. The personal data protection legislation that has been enacted in India elucidates the right to be forgotten on an individual's part. The “right to privacy” is not specifically addressed in the Constitution of India; rather, it was clarified in the decision by the Court in 2017, which highlighted the relevance of the “right of privacy”.

CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

When we speak about privacy, we are referring to the wish of an individual to maintain complete confidentiality regarding himself or pertaining to his personal facts. Establishing personal limits enables folks to relish their own company without external influence. The 4 Viviane Reding, Making Europe the Standard Setter for Modern Data Protection Rules in the Digital Age, 5

THE EU DATA PROTECTION REFORM 2012 (2012)

5 INDIA CONST. art. 12 - 35.

autonomy of an individual to choose the extent of personal disclosure and the frequency of social interaction is essential to human dignity. In essence, all individuals possess the autonomy to engage or abstain according to their discretion. In isolated regions, individuals possess the right to confidentiality about personal information, sexual issues, and commercial transactions, and no one shall intrude upon their privacy. The concept and importance of privacy have evolved throughout time. Numerous talks around the concept have occurred, although no formal requests have been made. Justice Cooley first acknowledged the “right to be let alone. ”6 In their important Article7, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis defined invasion of privacy as a unique tortious violation, and the phrase was also used in that work.

The article states that “political, social, and economic transformations need the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its perpetual evolution, adapts to fulfill society's emerging needs”. Initially, the law provided a remedy only for violations—physical intrusions into life or property. At that time, the right to life was only concerned with safeguarding individuals from various sorts of violence; liberty signified the absence of physical restraint; and the right to property guaranteed individuals the ownership of land and animals. It was subsequently recognized that humanity has a spiritual dimension alongside emotions and cognition. Prior to the Indian court's judgment regarding declaration of the “right to privacy” as a fundamental right in 2018, the concept of privacy was not fully acknowledged inside the Indian constitution.

The legal examination of history has adequately elucidated privacy laws. The term “privacy” is not delineated in any national legislation, and neither historical nor contemporary laws provide a definition of the term. 8 A proposal for an amendment was made at the Constituent Assembly, which was the time that the Right to Privacy was brought up for discussion. The Right's incorporation in the Indian Constitution was impeded by snobby support. Privacy as a Fundamental Right, but Not Absolute Ever since the year 1960, the concept of privacy has been addressed by both the common law and the principle of fundamental rights. In India, the right to privacy is primarily drawn from the Constitution and the Common Law of Torts. Both of these legal documents are of great importance. In common law, a person may pursue damages for an illegal violation of privacy

6 Cooley on Torts, 2d ed., p. 29.

7 R Wacks, The Poverty of Privacy, 96 LQR 73 (1980).

8 VM Schönberger, Delete: the Virtues of Forgetting in the Digital Age, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 99, 100 (2009).

by initiating a private action. In 1954, the Supreme Court9, determined for the first time that “privacy is not a fundamental right”. The legal “right to privacy” is not guaranteed in India. The 1964 case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh10 questioned “whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right”. The same was rejected once again in a later verdict regarding the matter. Wolf v. Colorado11 was a U. S. Supreme Court judgment used in discussions over the concept of privacy. A decision was made that said that the common law norm, which stated that a man's home was his castle, articulated a notion of personal liberty that did not rely on a theory that no longer existed. Therefore, it was observed by the court that the domiciliary visit was unconstitutional because it broke personal liberty. The case of Gobind v.

State of Madhya Pradesh12 reviewed the issue of privacy as a fundamental right. Individuals possess an intrinsic “right to privacy”, as articulated in Article

21. The Court of Appeals said, “A citizen possesses the right to safeguard their privacy, family,

marriage, reproduction, motherhood, childbearing, and education, among other matters. ” No one may write on the aforementioned issues, whether truthful or false, praising or critical, without his approval. The Supreme Court of India has deliberated on the imperative of privacy and its potential recognition as a fundamental right in several cases, including R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu13, PUCL v. Union of India14, and State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah15; consequently, he may be subject to a damages claim if he infringes upon an individual's “right to privacy” in this manner. In PUCL v. UOI16, the Supreme Court asserted that “the right to life and personal liberty encompasses the right to privacy, which includes telephone conversations conducted in the privacy of one's home or office; consequently, telephone tapping infringes upon Article 21.

” Notwithstanding many verdicts, the right to privacy has yet to be formally acknowledged as a fundamental human right17. To ascertain “whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right”, a three-judges bench of the Indian SC referred several cases to a constitutional bench in 2015. The constitution bench ultimately submitted the matter to a bench consisting of nine judges, which led to the appointment of the second bench. There was a unanimous endorsement that every individual had an intrinsic and

9 MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra & Ors, AIR 1954 SCR 1077.

10 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 AIR 1295.

11 Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).

12 Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 (2) SCC 14.

13 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.

14 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476.

15 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5 490.

16 Supra note, 14.

17 Sindhu V Reddy, Right To Information And Good Governance, 165 NLSIU REVIEW (2016).

inalienable right to privacy, placing it on par with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 1418, 1919, and 2120. The court in K. S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India21 examined the scope and significance of privacy in this case. The groundwork for it was laid by Justice S. A. Bobde. The “Right to Privacy” may be identified not just in Article 21 but also in the many protections outlined in Part III. Articles 19(1)22, 20(3)23, 2524, 2825, and 2926 embody rights that are substantially augmented and made relevant by the practice of privacy in modern contexts. This list does not include all pertinent things. It is possible that future developments in sociology and technology could reveal more constitutional places Justice R. F. Nariman elucidated the notion of the basic right to privacy from several viewpoints.

There are at least three separate levels of privacy: a) Privacy related to an individual's physical existence b) Informational privacy related to an individual's cognitive processes, and c) Privacy pertaining to personal decision-making. 27 Justice Chalmeshwar said, “It is clear that no legal right can be deemed absolute. Every right has intrinsic limitations. ” This specific aspect of the case is recognized within the bar. Thus, even the essential right to privacy is susceptible to restrictions. Limitations must be evaluated individually, depending on the particular privacy interests involved. ” Subsequent to the landmark judgment of 2017, it has been determined that under Article 21, the right to privacy is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty, representing a constitutional concept incorporated in Part III of the Constitution's basic freedoms28.

Therefore, unlike the rights to life and liberty, the right to privacy does not have absolute validity. There are restrictions that apply to the right to privacy that are comparable to those that are associated with the right to life. The law that imposes restrictions on rights must also comply with

18 INDIA CONST. art. 14.

19 INDIA CONST. art. 19.

20 Supra note, 1.

21 K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

22 Supra note 19, cl. 1.

23 INDIA CONST. art. 20 cl. 3.

24 INDIA CONST. art. 25.

25 INDIA CONST. art. 28.

26 INDIA CONST. art. 29.

27 Supra note, 21.

28 Ibid.

constitutional safeguards. Thus, the right is subject to logical limits established by the State to protect legitimate State interests or the general welfare. The decision further confirms that individuals have the right to exercise control over their personal data in the digital sphere, albeit this exercise of control is not guaranteed in an absolute way. The individual's liberty to manage personal data and navigate their life naturally includes the right to govern their online appearance. It is essential to acknowledge that the right to information is not unconditional.

CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN INDIA

The evolution of data privacy in India prominently includes the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF). In 2019, India made significant progress in enacting comprehensive data protection laws by releasing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, reflecting worldwide trends in acknowledging and safeguarding personal privacy rights. The provisions of the DPDP Act, influenced by the EU's GDPR, underscore the significance of the RTBF in the broader context of data protection. 29 The RTBF, as delineated in the PDPB, refers to the capacity of a data custodian to limit or cease the dissemination of personally identifiable information when it is no longer necessary, has fulfilled its intended function, or when an individual retracts their consent30. Individuals may petition for the removal of personal data from internet sites, contingent upon the fulfilment of certain criteria.

Typically, this indicates that the data was either incorrect, out of date, or unneeded for the first processing. In other words, it has occurred. The Data Protection Authority (DPA) meticulously monitors the enforcement of the RTBF to ensure compliance with legal standards and the protection of individual rights. India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023 lays down the “Right to correction and erasure of personal data” under its Section 1231, thus codifying the Right to be Forgotten in India. There are a number of challenges that must be overcome before RTBF can be properly used as per the provisions of the PDPA. Reconciling the RTBF with other fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, presents a formidable challenge. 32 Article

19 of the Indian Constitution ensures certain rights, and data regulations must comply with

29 Council Regulation 2016/679, art. 17, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.

30 D Solove, “I've Got Nothing to Hide” and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, 44 SDL REV. 745, 768 (2007).

31 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, § 12, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

32 J. Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty, 113(6) YALE L. J. 1151 (2004).

these protections to prevent conflicts. In India, courts have started to handle cases when individuals demand the removal of damaging or irrelevant information from the internet. The Karnataka HC recognized the RTBF in a historic 2017 verdict, allowing for the removal of an individual's identity from public records to safeguard their privacy. This exemplifies the shifting judicial perspective on the RTBF and its potential clash with citizens' right to information. The obligations of data processors and controllers in implementing the Right to be Forgotten are very important. The DPDP Act requires data fiduciaries to implement steps to adequately handle RTBF requests, a process that may demand significant technological and administrative resources.

This procedure involves validating the authenticity of the requests, ascertaining the relevant information, and guaranteeing its elimination from all applicable platforms and records. The financial obligations and operational obstacles linked to these procedures may be substantial, especially for smaller companies and emerging corporations that lack the resources often accessible to bigger organizations. The RTBF also impacts the business landscape in India. Entities functioning in the digital realm, including social media platforms, search engines, and e-commerce websites, must amend their data management policies to adhere to the legislation concerning the Right to be Forgotten.

This alteration may need the reassessment of current data policies, the commitment of resources to modern technology for effective administration of data deletion requests, and the establishment of compliance training programs for staff. 33 The primary aim of these modifications is to improve individual privacy, although they also raise concerns over their possible effects on business operations and creativity. Currently, it is more difficult to detach from one’s history, especially in an age when personal information may be easily shared online and is permanently available via swift search capabilities. For those seeking a fresh start, the right to be forgotten has immense importance, especially given the expanding scope of our digital imprint.

34 The essential question that defines the inception and nature of the RTBF is: should the maintenance of this right be seen as a judicious decision?

33 J. Rosen, The Purposes of Privacy: A Response, 89 GEO LJ, 2117 (2001).

34 Supra note, 32.

The preliminary question emerged in the judiciary about the case of Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave Vs. State of Gujarat35, submitted to the Gujarat HC. The court, in its decisions, did not acknowledge the alleged “right to be forgotten. ” The petitioner was charged with criminal conspiracy, murder, and abduction, among other matters, and was acquitted by the Sessions Court, a ruling that was later affirmed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat HC. The petitioner contended that, due to the judgment's non-reportable nature, the respondent should be barred from publishing it online, as such dissemination would jeopardize the petitioner's personal and professional welfare.

The Honb’le HC, on the other hand, concluded that the publication in issue did not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and that the petitioner did not provide sufficient legal reasons to prevent the respondents from spreading the ruling. The RTBF encounters more challenges in India owing to the nation's social and legal framework. The execution of RTBF must consider the diverse and evolving digital landscape, reflecting the country's differing levels of digital knowledge and accessibility. The urgent problem of ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their degree of digital competence, are able to participate in real-time business communication, RTBF is one that policymakers really need to solve. It is important to note that the RTBF clause included in India's data privacy rules represents a major step towards enabling people to govern their data in the digital era.

Successful implementation requires a meticulous equilibrium between privacy rights and freedom of expression, the establishment of dependable compliance methods for data trustees, and an awareness of India's distinctive socio-legal context. The assessment of the PDPB by legislators will substantially influence the future management of data privacy in India. 36 Individual Privacy vs. Public Interest The discussion on the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) in India focuses on the conflict between personal privacy rights and common good of the society. The key issue in this discussion is the difficulty of balancing an individual's right to control their personal data with the collective's right to access information, which is crucial for promoting openness and advancing knowledge. The right to privacy is a basic entitlement enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian

35 Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2019.

36 Personal Data Protection Bill, No. 373 of 2019, (India).

Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court validated this in significant instances like Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India37, so confirming privacy as a fundamental right. The Right to Be Forgotten enables anyone to seek the deletion of personal data deemed obsolete, irrelevant, or harmful within the existing privacy framework. This enables people to safeguard their digital identities and avert the exploitation of their data. Conversely, the notion of public interest includes the collective right to receive information, an essential prerequisite for the proper operation of a democratic society. This concerns the right to freedom of speech and expression as delineated in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution38. The RTBF may possibly violate this right by putting limitations on access to information considered vital to the public.

Comprehension of public people, prior illicit behavior, or historical occurrences is crucial for promoting open dialogue, accountability, and transparency. The elimination of this information may hinder the independence of the press, academic inquiry, and the public's right to information. 39 Achieving balance among these conflicting goals requires a sophisticated approach. The DPDP Act seeks to tackle this issue by including measures that enable the Right to be Forgotten under certain situations, while also safeguarding the right to information. The Data Protection Authority is essential in balancing the duties related to the assessment of Right to Be Forgotten requests while ensuring that data removal conforms to public interest and legal requirements. The balance is profoundly influenced by the judiciary's interpretation of legal legislation.

The court has begun to resolve these problems, as shown by several opinions that assess the balance between individual privacy and the public's right to knowledge. These verdicts highlight the need of evaluating each situation based on its own merits to avoid any undue effect on either right. The relationship between individual privacy and collective benefit regarding the Right to Be Forgotten highlights the intricate dynamics of information protection in today's digital environment, requiring a balanced and fair approach to maintain both privacy and transparency.

37 Supra note, 21.

38 INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 1(a).

39 Jannah McCarville, Balancing Access and Privacy in Archives: New Challenges in the Face of Canadian Privacy Legislation, 50 FELICITER 149 (2004).

CHAPTER 4: JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, which is among the most esteemed human rights, including the right to be forgotten. The right to life and the right to personal liberty are both protected under Article 21 of the American Constitution. The word “person” include both citizens and non-citizens. With the cases of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Anr. Vs. Union of India40, the Supreme Court of India established Article 2141 as a fundamental right alongside equality, privacy protection, social justice, non-discrimination, gender justice, freedom of religion and language, and the Internet. In these cases, the Supreme Court outlined how an individual possesses the power to control his or her own personal data. It is imperative that individuals maintain authority over their digital existence.

As a result of the digital era, material published online is perpetually available. Despite humans' propensity to forget, the internet has unequivocally shown that this will not occur. Regardless of your efforts, nothing uploaded to the internet can be completely eradicated. The traces remain discernible. When it comes to our digital age, where preservation is the norm, one might say that forgetting is a daily challenge that we face. In the case of Zulfiqar Ahman Khan Vs. M/S Quintillion42, one of the concerns raised was his request for the news website to remove articles that were disparaging towards him. The right to be forgotten and to maintain solitude is essential to an individual's life and existence, said the Delhi HC. The Constitution of India, specifically Article 2143, protects both of these.

It has been initiated by the contemporary online community to evaluate the integrity of individuals. Comprehending online communication requires an examination of the complexities of human life, including its beneficial and detrimental aspects. The integrity of our privacy is now compromised. The folks are spreading baseless falsehoods online about others. In modern culture, the privacy of an individual's personal information has become more compromised. In modern society, individuals use internet searches to get a wide range of information relevant to their requirements. Occasionally, people may get entangled in illegal behavior due to their internet searches. It allows a person to eliminate personal information from the Internet. Despite the lack of official acknowledgment in Indian law, subsequent court

40 Supra note, 21.

41 INDIA CONST. art. 21.

42 Zulfiqar Ahman Khan Vs. M/S Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd. & ors., Laws (DLH) 2019 5 101.

43 INDIA CONST. art. 21.

rulings have determined that this right is a basic component of the right to privacy. The Delhi HC is now reviewing many petitions for the removal of personal data from the Websites, court papers, and historical press records. Thus yet, just a few issues have successfully obtained remedy from the courts. The Delhi HC has issued a significant ruling in the matter of K. S. Puttaswamy44. In terms of the development of the right to privacy throughout history, this decision represents a significant turning point. The court decided that the legislation governing personal data also protected the rights that had been forgotten before. In the event that it is necessary, the Orissa HC has said that legal processes may be used in order to initiate the enforcement of such a right. According to the current state of affairs, the nation does not possess either a constitutional provision.

In Europe, the GDPR, which is the legislation that governs digital privacy, has a provision called the RTBF. This provision mandates that data must be deleted when it is no longer required or when the person withdraws their consent to have it stored. Using this technology results in the creation of a permanent repository, which makes the process of beginning again and gaining knowledge from previous errors more difficult. Individuals are not static creatures; rather, they undergo continuous adaptation and development over the course of their lifespan. In the process, they undergo transformation. Mistakes are made by them. In spite of this, individuals possess the inherent right to reinterpret, modify, and gain knowledge from their mistakes.

The availability of privacy, which simultaneously liberates a person from the restraints of prior unfavorable habits, is a factor that contributes to the development of this skill. Global Perspectives In Google Spain SL v. Agencia45, the CJEU concluded that the right to be forgotten supersedes the financial interests of search engine providers and the autonomy of internet users regarding their personal information. It required that secondary sites containing court documents pertaining to the claimant's acquittal have their links deindexed by search engines. 46 This example illustrated the challenges in implementing this privilege, as it restricted the display of

44 Supra note, 21.

45 Google Spain SL v. Agencia, (2014) 3 WLR 659.

46 Ibid.

the claimant's information in a general search while rendering it easily accessible in a more targeted inquiry. An Argentine court determined that the European Court of Justice's ruling imposing liability on search engines was illegal. The Court determined that search engines have no obligation to oversee third-party data, since they just act as intermediaries in the case Da Cunha v. Yahoo47. High Court’s tussle of “it is present” or “it is not” The right to be forgotten has been interpreted differently by the High Courts. This is particularly pertinent when evaluating its status as a fundamental right within the broader context of the “right to privacy”. HCs have evaluated conflicting principles, including freedom of expression, the right to see a third party's (like a prospective employer or business associate) legal history, and the need for open justice and transparency.

The petitioner in Sri Vasunathan Vs. The Registrar General & Ors. 48 requested to remove his daughter's name from the case title, citing concerns that it might harm her reputation. The Court's decision benefited the Petitioner. The verdict asserts that a fundamental aspect of the right to privacy is the capacity to forget. In SK v. Union of India49 and Jorawar Singh Mundy v. UOI50, the Delhi HC mandated that both the search engine and the legal database remove the name of the accused from their information publishing platforms. Taking into consideration the claimants' right to privacy as well as the possible harm to their reputation that may be caused by having their names connected with criminal charges even after they have been found not guilty, the courts decided to redact the information. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab Vs.

Gurmeet Singh and Ors51 indicates that victims of sexual assault may feel more secure in coming forward if they may preserve their anonymity. Victims of sexual assault and those who have inadvertently perpetrated offenses may significantly benefit from the Forgotten Right. In the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v.

47 Da Cunha v. Yahoo de Argentina SRL AR/JUR/40066/2020.

48 Sri Vasunathan Vs. The Registrar General & Ors., W.P. No. 62038/2016.

49 SK v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 488.

50 Jorawar Singh Mundy v. UOI, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2306.

51 State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1393.

Delhi Administration52, Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court that reaffirmed a fundamental value of our constitutional tradition: the right to be treated with dignity and respect. The Kerala HC, in Vysakh K. G. v. UOI53, declined to overstep into legislative jurisdiction, asserting that open justice and the greater public good should prevail. The Gujarat HC did not acknowledge the “Right to be Forgotten” in the case of Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave Vs. State of Gujarat54. The petitioner in this case faced allegations of murder, kidnapping, and other offenses. The petitioner was subsequently freed by the Sessions Court. The session court's verdict was affirmed by a division bench of the Gujarat HC. The petitioner contended that, owing to the judgment's ramifications on their personal and professional spheres, it ought not to be disseminated online until it is deemed non-reportable.

The HC determined that the petitioner did not possess the requisite legal standing to prevent the respondents from disseminating the verdict, and that such action would not be violative of Article 21. The Court has objectively noted in the decision of Sri Vasunathan Vs. Registrar General55 that the RTBF arises from countries that address sensitive issues concerning women differently. The HC acknowledges the “Right to be Forgotten. ” The petitioner's daughter's name was erased in this case due to the dishonor it brought upon her reputation. The court adjudicated the petitioner as guilty. In sensitive issues concerning women, the court determined that the “Right to be Forgotten” is applied as a general principle. The Karnataka HC recognized the “right to be forgotten” in the case of V. vs. HC of Karnataka56.

The petitioner's daughter's name was deleted from the cause title due to its conspicuous display and potential to tarnish her reputation. The petitioner obtained a reversal of the decision of the Hon’ble court, resulting in the modification of the orders to exclude the name of the petitioner's daughter. The court determined that some instances, including cybercrime targeting women, economic offenses, heinous crimes, acid assaults, and rape, are eligible for the right to be forgotten as recognized by European nations. A significant advancement is the extensive acknowledgment of the “right to be forgotten” as a fundamental aspect of the “right to privacy”.

52 Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 CriLJ 930.

53 Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India, (2023) 1 KLJ 227.

54 Supra note, 35.

55 Supra note, 48.

56 Sri. Vasunathan. vs. High Court of Karnataka, 2017 SCC Online Kar 424.

The Supreme Court's historic decision in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India57 raises the question: what was the primary problem it sought to resolve? The Supreme Court said that the RTBF is subject to various limits, claiming that its applicability is excluded where the information in issue is considered relevant: • To analyze the essential rights specified in Article 19. • To the fulfillment of responsibility and obligations as prescribed by law • To the execution of responsibilities related to public welfare and health; • To the protection of information for the public good; for scientific or historical research, or for statistical evaluation; or • The commencement, pursuit, or defense of legal claims. In a recent ruling by a Single Judge Bench of the HC, wherein the judge addressed the important issue of the RTBF, acknowledged as a component of the basic “right to privacy.

”58 In this particular case, the identity of the petitioner was included in the decision that was handed down by the HC, and it was easily reached by anybody who could do a search on Google using their name. Despite the petitioner's acquittal, they were classified as an accused party in the previous ruling. In light of this, the petitioner contends that this has a negative impact on his reputation in the public gaze. Therefore, the petitioner requests a directive from the High Court to delete their name from the judgment. In particular with regard to judicial decisions, the Madras High Court has come to the conclusion that the idea of a “right to be forgotten” is irreconcilable with the legal foundations that govern the administration of justice. Supreme Court’s distinction between the ‘right to be forgotten’ and ‘redaction of information’ and the existing Uncertainty

57 Supra note, 21.

58 Nandini Chabra, Striking a Balance between Right to Privacy and Right to Information: Critically studying the Indian scenario, 2(3) INDIAN JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED RESEARCH IN LAW 1, 6 (2022).

The de-indexing of certain links from search engines, as well as the redaction of names and other identifying information, has been authorized by the Indian Courts. In spite of this, the courts have never allowed the exclusion of decisions that do not take a stance on the legal controversy. In Karthick Theodre vs. Registrar General59, the Madras HC came to the decision that the integrity of an original record can only be altered in line with the rules of the law. As a result, the claimant's petition to remove information from court records that are accessible to the public was denied. Through an order dated July 24, 2024, the Supreme Court delayed this judgment60. In this order, the court equated the right to be forgotten with the redaction of some material that pertains to the claimant.

The petition was found to be too “far-fetched” by the court, and the court's consideration was restricted to requests for the censoring of content or the anonymization of the identity of witnesses and victims. Within the scope of the judgment is the modification of certain orders that the claimant has disputed. As a result of the fact that the name of the acquitted person may still be included in the FIR or witness testimony recorded at different stages of the trial, it does not ensure that the information will be expunged or that the criminal record will be completely removed. Whether the claimant or problem corresponds to the obligations of a public authority is something that the Justice Sri Krishna Committee said should be taken into consideration when determining “whether or not the right to privacy should be reviewed”.

In light of this, the question arises as to whether or not the possibility for atonement by the exercise of the Right is open for transgressions of this kind. The decision highlights the ongoing struggle that exists between protecting the privacy of individuals and ensuring that public information is available and maintains its integrity. As a consequence of this, it is particularly important to emphasize the need for extra thorough legislative and judicial clarity. The “RTBF is recognized within the context of private rights and legal measures, while the wisdom shown by both the law and the court serves to underline the boundaries of this right.

59 Karthick Theodre vs. Registrar General, Madras High Court & Ors, W.A. (MD) No.1901 of 2021.

60 Ikanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd v. Karthick Theodore & ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 15311/2024.

The DPDP Act includes a provision in Section 1261 that outlines the right to remove and correct personal data. Despite the fact that its contents have not yet been disclosed, the Act, in combination with the final decision of the SC, is poised to define the eventual course of action for any and all claims that are associated with this privilege. This raises the question of whether or not treatments such as redacting content or de-indexing secondary sources are sufficient in attaining “forgetting,” and whether or not it is even possible to achieve real “forgetting” when information has spread across the vast domain of the internet. As a result, the issue of whether the principles of open justice, the “freedom of expression”, or the “right to information” may be supplanted by an individual's declaration of the “right to be forgotten” is still a topic that has not been resolved.

Constitutional Provision & Right to Be Forgotten The “right to privacy” is the most essential and supreme right enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The First Amendment ensures the right to life, but the Second Amendment secures the “right to personal liberty”. Both are essential for the sustenance of life. The “right to privacy” is intrinsic and will be integrated into the “Right to Life” provided by Article 2162 of the Constitution, as expressed by the Indian Judiciary in the landmark judgment of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. )63. The Indian Court asserts that enhancing one's quality of life and protecting one's privacy may be achieved by increasing control over one's online identity. Although the internet has several beneficial applications, it may also complicate some individuals' lives. In Zulfiqar Ahman Khan Case.

At this point, the Delhi High Court said that the RTBF is becoming an essential facet of human existence. 64

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION

The right to erasure has been established as a legal right, and the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in India's legislature (which is a commendable accomplishment) has helped to settle judicial conflicts around it. This is a positive step. To be effectively executed, this act requires certain reforms:

61 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, § 12, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

62 INDIA CONST. art. 21.

63 Supra note, 21.

64 Supra note, 42.

Setting a suitable time frame for the data fiduciary to respond to requests and for the Data Protection Board to adjudicate disputes is essential for the effective implementation of the right. • The right to be forgotten applies not just to articles but also to thumbnails, images, and videos; they may be removed by according to the same five-criterion approach. • Furthermore, the data fiduciary should receive compensation under the Act if the data principal's failure to comply with the request is driven by malice or a disregard for the appropriateness of data deletion concerning essential rights or public interest. • To enhance individuals' capacity to exercise their privacy rights and bridge the digital literacy divide, it is imperative to initiate public awareness campaigns that are attuned to the many languages and cultures prevalent in India.

Moreover, to foster innovation while adhering to legal requirements, the regulatory framework must include the needs of new and small enterprises, as well as medium-sized businesses. • Should the right to be forgotten experience modification, it must broaden its parameters to include all relevant domains, necessitating the removal of data from each domain if the request is approved. The right to deletion would become futile and ineffectual if the current trajectory is maintained, since the pertinent data may remain accessible via an other domain name. Upon approval of the request, the data must be entirely unavailable for the right to be deemed successful. • The idea of relevance is always shifting in today's environment, which is something that should be kept in mind as an essential consideration.

Consequently, despite the fact that the data in issue was not pertinent at the time that the right to be forgotten was claimed, it is possible that it may become important at some point in the future for other reasons. One approach to resolve this issue might include mandating the Data Protection Board to create an offline archive of all links that are deleted when an individual invokes their right to erasure. In this manner, they might be reinstated if required by the board or by the esteemed courts. • Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the right to be forgotten be enhanced. The jurisprudential reasoning that underpins the right to be forgotten must be developed and

put into effect. Nonetheless, it must not be jeopardized concerning basic rights or the public interest. The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) protects an individual's privacy rights in the digital domain. Successfully integrating it into India's data privacy framework necessitates a balance between restricting personal liberty and impeding public interest and free expression. To develop a robust data protection system that accommodates both international standards and local variances, it is essential to meticulously evaluate these factors as the DPDP Act progresses through the legislative or judicial scrutiny. Conclusion The adoption of the “Right to be Forgotten” (RTBF) has marked a key turning point in the delicate balance that exists between the preservation of individual privacy and the maintenance of the public good in India's ever-evolving data privacy environment.

This is because the RTBF has marked a significant turning point in the delicate equilibrium. When addressing the RTBF within the context of the DPDP Act, it is very important to take into account both the sociolegal milieu of India as well as the precedents that have been established in other countries. While the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) aims to set a strict standard for the right to be forgotten, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is working toward the goal of providing a comprehensive framework for data protection that is in line with worldwide trends. In both the legal and technical spheres, the “right to be forgotten” is acquiring more and more significance. Due to the presence of technological hurdles, the legal requirements for this privilege are getting more complicated.

At this point in time, it is generally acknowledged that the “Right to be Forgotten” encompasses the “right to privacy”. In order to prevent the “Right to be Forgotten” from casting a shadow over the right to free speech and publishing, we shall consider any facts that are discussed in this context to be factual. In spite of this, there are significant challenges related to the implementation of the RTBF in India. In order to reach a state of equilibrium between the “rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and public access to information”, it is vital to strike this balance. When it comes to interpreting and protecting fundamental rights in this complicated climate, the court is very necessary.

When it comes to smaller organizations, the operational and technological challenges of achieving RTBF regulations are made even more difficult by the obligations of data processors and controllers. On account of the fact that the “Right to be forgotten” is not

included in India's constitution, the citizens are now discussing the matter. It is imperative that India continue to rely on ad hoc case law in order to take use of this privilege.