Right To Be Forgotten (Rtbf)

The right to be forgotten has gained significant attention in India’s news recently, as the Supreme Court is considering cases that may define its scope in Indian law. This concept allows individuals to seek the removal of personal information from online platforms to safeguard their privacy, especially when such data is outdated or irrelevant. Indian courts currently weigh this right against competing interests like free speech and public record, with no absolute statutory framework yet in place”

SYLLABUS LINKAGE:

General Studies Paper 2 (GS2): Polity, Governance & Constitution- fundamental rights and judiciary.
General Studies Paper 3 (GS3) Technology: Information Technology
General Studies Paper 4: ethics integrity and aptitude

ABOUT THE CONCEPT:

The Right to be Forgotten is defined as the legal and ethical entitlement of an individual to have their personal data—specifically information that is no longer necessary, relevant, or accurate—removed, delinked, or erased from publicly accessible sources, search engines, and databases.”

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN:

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The RTBF is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. It is a judicially derived right, emerging from the broader Right to Privacy, which was declared a fundamental right in the landmark judgment.
Article 21: In the judgement the right to privacy has been interpreted as the intrinsic part of the the right to life and personal liberty under the article.
Article 19(2) allows for “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of speech, such as protecting privacy, reputation, or mental health—but only via legally sanctioned statutes; courts balance these dimensions in each case.
The Srikrishna Committee Report and the draft Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2019, proposed the inclusion of right to be forgotten, but it was not enacted.
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023: This Act now provides statutory backing for the RTBF, referred to as the “Right to correction and erasure of personal data” under Section 12.
Mechanism under DPDP Act: A Data Principal (the individual) can request a Data Fiduciary (the entity holding the data) to correct, complete, update, or erase their personal data for the processing of which consent was given, or when the purpose for collection is served.

JURISPRUDENTIAL DIMENSIONS – THROUGH THE LENS OF CASE LAWS

JUDGMENTS UPHOLDING RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

Karnataka high court in a case in 2017, ordered the registry to mask her name in online records to protect her privacy and modesty.
Delhi high court in 2021, in the jorawar singh mundy v. UoI, ordered indian kanoon to remove a judgement related to an acquitted person, as it would cause irreparable prejudice to his social life and career prospects.
Orissa high court in 2020, upheld the victim’s right to have her images removed from
ABC v State & Anr. ( 2024, Delhi High Court): The Delhi High Court held that RTBF is part of the right to live with dignity and directed the masking of involved parties’ names from judgment records and search results.
Punjab & Haryana High Court (2025): Upheld RTBF for a person exonerated in a criminal case, ordering removal/redaction of the petitioner’s name from all proceedings to prevent lifelong reputation harm

JUDGEMENTS LIMITING RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

Gujarat high court in dharamaraj bhanushankar dave v. state of gujarat, 2017, dismissed a plea to remove a judgement of acquittal from the public online records.
Kerala high court in Vyshak kg v. UoI 2022, held that the right to be forgotten cannot be absolute and must be balanced with the principle of open justice and the larger public interest in accessing public records.
Madras high court in 2021, refused to allow redaction of a name from a judgement, stating that the sanctity of an original record cannot be altered.

SOCIAL AND ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

DIGNITY AND A FRESH START

Case 1: People acquitted of criminal cases and people who have completed their sentences get a chance to reintegrate into the society without perpetual prejudice.
Case 2: Victims of sexual abuse/ harassment, get a chance to rewire and move beyond the associated stigma from the society.
Case 3: Enables individuals to escape the permanent digital shadow of past mistakes, youthful indiscretions, or negative events, thus promoting personal autonomy.

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE GROUPS:

Prevention of revictimisation and social stigmatisation will provide new life.
Children in conflict with crime may feel more secure when their right to be forgotten is assured.

DIGITAL FOOTPRINT:

In the digital age permanency of information makes preservation the norm and forgetting a struggle.
RTBF can be an ethical tool to correct this imbalance and provide individuals the control over digital identity.
Moral Responsibility: Proponents argue there is a moral imperative to protect wellbeing and dignity, which may outweigh strict adherence to “never delete” principles in journalism or archiving, especially for individuals not in the public eye.

GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW

THE CORE CONFLICT BETWEEN RTBF AND RTI: The biggest administrative challenge is the direct conflict between RTBF (under Art 21) and the Right to Information (RTI) and Freedom of Speech (Art 19).
Ethically, RTBF embodies the tension between an individual’s right to privacy and society’s right to freedom of information and expression.
OPEN JUSTICE vs PRIVACY: Court records are traditionally public to ensure transparency and accountability (the “open justice” principle). Selective erasure would erode public trust. Critics warn that the right can be abused by public figures, politicians, or criminals to hide important or legitimate public interest information
RISK OF CENSIORSHIP: Unchecked implementation could be misused by powerful individuals to erase inconvenient news, “rewrite history,” or curb journalistic freedom.
PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPTION: It does not apply where data is necessary for legal obligations, public interest tasks, public health, or for historical/scientific research.

INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH INDIAN LAWS

EU’S GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION:

Codified in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) under Article 17 (“Right to Erasure”).
A data subject (individual) can request the erasure of their personal data from a data controller (organization) if the data is not long necessary, withdrawal of consent, objects to processing, data was unlawfully processed,

Specific exceptions to the right is also mentioned : in cases of right to freedom of expression, compliance with legal obligations, public interest and public health

PRELIMS RELATED FACTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TROPICAL AND TEMPERATE CYCLONES

Feature/Aspect	EU GDPR (Article 17)	India DPDP Act, 2023 (Section 12)
Scope	Explicit, detailed “Right to Erasure” with broad application	Right to erasure and correction, but not as explicitly described
Grounds for Erasure	Multiple, including data no longer needed, consent withdrawal, objection, unlawful processing, compliance with law, child data	Data principal can request erasure if purpose is served or consent withdrawn; scope mostly limited to consent-based data
Timeline for Response	One month (approximate, “undue delay” standard)	No specific timeline prescribed
Obligation to Inform Others	Must take reasonable steps to inform other controllers to erase	No explicit obligation stated
Applicability	Applies to all controllers processing personal data, including cross-border data flows	Applies to digital data processed by “data fiduciary”; with broader government exemptions
Public Interest/Exceptions	Balance with freedom of expression, public interest, research, and legal claims	Balancing test with public interest, legal duties, and freedom of speech; not absolute
Regulator/Adjudication	Independent data protection authorities; controller must act	Data Protection Board of India; primary decision by data fiduciary (conflict of interest concerns)
Sanctions	Significant penalties for non-compliance	Monetary penalties, generally less stringent

ARGENTINA: the protection law recognises right to erasure and provides for search delisting of outdated and prejudicial personal data.

FRANCE: The country implemented the right to be forgotten in 2010, prior to GDPR. There are fines for non compliance and global dereferencing in prominent cases.

UK: UK’s Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) allows many criminal convictions to become “spent” over time. Once spent, referencing such convictions in public records is legally restricted

Key Illustrations and Notable Cases at the global level

Google Spain case (2014, CJEU): Landmark EU case establishing the enforceability of RTBF for search engines.
Requests to Google and Microsoft: Following the EU decision, global tech firms received thousands of RTBF requests from different jurisdictions, including some outside the EU who attempted to leverage or mirror EU-style rights

CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD

Balancing Rights: The foremost challenge is creating a clear framework to balance the individual’s right to privacy against the public’s right to information and the media’s freedom of speech.

Policy Suggestion:

Set up a statutory balancing test: only permit RTBF when there is no overriding public interest; establish oversight by an independent data authority for high-profile or sensitive cases.

Adjudication: Leaving the initial decision to Data Fiduciaries is problematic, as they are interested parties

Policy Suggestion: Establish an Independent Data Protection Authority (DPA): All RTBF requests should be directly submitted to or promptly reviewed by this independent body, not just by the data fiduciary.

Technological Implementation: Data, once on the internet, is easily copied, cached, and archived. Ensuring complete erasure is a significant technical hurdle.

Policy Suggestion: Mandate technical compliance standards for data fiduciaries (companies, agencies), periodic audits, and collaborative arrangements with search engines for de-indexing. Promote development of digital erasure tools.

Jurisdiction and Cross-Border Issues: International servers and search engines may not be subject to Indian orders, limiting effectiveness of redressal.

Policy Suggestion: Negotiate international and bilateral treaties on data protection; include RTBF obligations for multinational providers operating in India; collaborate through platforms like the G20 on digital governance.

Administrative and Enforcement Challenges: Absence of clear guidelines and Overburdened regulatory authorities could delay timely resolution.

Policy Suggestion: Issue sectoral guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for RTBF compliance for government departments, courts, and private bodies, with capacity-building and training programs.

Possibility of Abuse: RTBF requests could be used to erase records of criminal, fraudulent, or harmful activities.

Policy Suggestion: Conduct due diligence and impact assessment before erasure; require affidavits, public notification for sensitive cases, and allow objections from affected parties.

Awareness and Digital Literacy: Need for capacity building among citizens, officials, and stakeholders.

Policy Suggestion: Launch public awareness campaigns, multilingual informational resources, and provide legal aid clinics to educate on digital rights and procedures.

Data protection infrastructure: Inadequate technical, human, and financial resources for compliance in smaller organizations.

Policy Suggestion: Provide technical support, low-cost compliance tools, and regulatory sandboxes for SMEs and startups. Create a helpdesk for RTBF implementation queries.

PRELIMS FOCUS AREA:

Item	Details
Definition	Right to have personal data erased from public sources
Data Principal	The individual whose personal data is being processed
Data Fiduciary	Entity (person, company, govt. body) that determines purpose and means of processing personal data
Origin	Article 17, EU GDPR (2016); Google Spain case (2014)
India Legal Status	Judicially recognized under Right to Privacy (Art. 21); Not explicit in statute yet
Key Indian Cases	K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), Jorawar Singh Mundy (2021, Delhi HC), ABC v State & Anr. (Delhi HC, 2024), Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)
Relevant Constitution	Article 21 (Right to Life & Privacy), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech)
Recent Statute	Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP)
Global Examples	EU, Argentina, France, Japan, Uruguay
Challenges	Conflict with free speech/public interest, technical barriers, varied precedent, abuse potential
Exceptions (EU/India)	Public interest, research, freedom of speech, legal obligations
Key Policy Suggestion	Independent review authority for adjudication

Dr. Rajkumar IAS / KAS Academy STORE