It is in this digital age, Right to be Forgotten has come to forefront. In simple words, Right to be Forgotten encompasses the Right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of his personal identity and information, from the digital space, particularly when the availability of such information on the internet, does not serve any legitimate purpose. The Courts, with the evolution of the digital age, have repeatedly now included Right to be Forgotten within the Right to Privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Open Justice viz a viz Right to be Forgotten in the Digital Age:

It becomes imperative to understand the interplay and underlying tension between the concept of open justice viz a viz the need of the Right to be Forgotten. An open and transparent judicial system is the backbone of any flourishing democracy, which can only be fulfilled by the transparent and free flow of information being provided to all citizens, at the same time, it is crucial to balance the said concept with the Right to be Forgotten. It may be said that both concepts can never be applied in isolation as both have their independent and important functions. Transparency in the justice delivery system ensures public confidence in the institution of judiciary whereas the Right to be Forgotten ensures that the constitutional values such as dignity and privacy of an individual are protected.

The balance between the two can be only achieved only when a distinction is made between the existence and accessibility of judicial records. Recently, the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India; 2026: DHC: 4891, noted that the Open Justice can be fulfilled by maintenance of the Court records accessible by way of their case number, citation or another purposeful search and the concept of Open Justice does not require an individual's name to be used as a retrieval key.

Practical Reliefs: De-linking & Masking:

The most commonly sought reliefs apart from seeking complete take down of judicial records from the digital space, are de-linking/de-indexing and masking of identities. De-linking/De-indexing is nothing but the removal of a record based on the name-search generated by a search engine. It does not remove the record from the digital space. It only ensures that name, cannot be used an identifying factor to retrieve a judicial record. Masking stands on a different footing. Masking ensures that the identity of the person is redacted from the court digital record and the usage of a neutral reference such as 'ABC' or 'XYZ' is done. It is however, pertinent to mention here that, in both the conditions, the judicial record does not cease to exist from the digital space, it is only retrievable and available differently.

These reliefs gain significance mostly in cases where the person has been acquitted, discharged, proceedings have been quashed, matter has been settled, matrimonial matters involving family and marriage, apart from others. However, at the same time, such reliefs ought not to be granted where the person is convicted of serious offences against women and children, or cases involving public servants, since the availability of information of such individuals is in public interest.

The Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav (Supra) has laid down a three-tier test to decide if de-linking ought to be granted or not:

1. The character of information and the outcome of the concluded proceedings: Where proceedings have resulted in acquittal/discharge or have been quashed or have been mutually settled, de-linking ought to be granted.

2. Public Role of the Individual: Public officials committing acts during the course of their public duty have no right to privacy. Hence, in such cases, de-linking ought not to be granted. However, the same is not a universal rule and a public official's personal disputes like matrimonial disputes may be entitled to the relief of de-linking.

3. Accuracy and Relevance: Where information has become irrelevant, inadequate, excessive or the same is inaccurate or false, then also de-linking ought to be granted.

In respect of Masking, the Delhi High Court in Abhishek Beri v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 15145/2024 opined that relief of Masking can only be granted by the Court which had passed the order or judgment, since only that court has the supervisory power of its own records. Further, the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav (Supra) also laid down the following parameters to be considered while deciding the relief of Masking:

1. Only names and personal identifiers be masked, not the substantive judgment.

2. Complete and un-redacted version to be retained by the Court for its internal records, Masking would be applicable only to the digital version.

3. Would be applicable to retrospective as well as future digitization of records, meaning thereby, masking may be applicable to the existing accessible online versions of the record as well as any future uploading.

Apart from masking and de-linking, the relief of complete take down of judicial records, is a matter which is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.

Way Forward:

Though the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav (Supra) is a small step on a long road, and is one of the most comprehensive decisions on the subject, the following would also go a long way in the evolution of jurisprudence and implementation of the Right to be Forgotten:

1. In view of the divergent views of different High Courts over a period of time, and in absence of a statute, a comprehensive decision of the Supreme Court which lays the complete guiding law by defining the reliefs, refusal of reliefs, scope of such reliefs and enforcement of such reliefs.

2. Application of De-linking/De-indexing in the software of the Courts. Most High Courts have an option of name-based search, hence, there ought to be application of the above reliefs to the portal and software of the Courts.