The Delhi High Court on Wednesday wondered whether a “blanket” direction restricting access to judicial records is necessary, observing that an individual whose privacy is affected by a particular judicial record could approach the concerned court for appropriate relief.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar was hearing a batch of appeals filed by legal databased website Indian Kanoon challenging a single judge ruling directing it to disable the name based search facility of court records.

“We are only thinking aloud. Having read thus far, we are wondering what was the purpose of this litigation? Suppose there is a case in which someone feels his private interest is badly affected or his right to privacy is badly affected or that in a particular report his identity should be de-indexed or masked. It is for him to go to that case and for that court to consider. What is the purpose to say I want a global direction that there should be no access to my name or no search based accessibility?,” Justice Shankar said.

This was after Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for the platform submitted that accessibility of judgments online serves “public purpose” and such orders cannot be blocked even though an individual is later acquitted, discharged or convicted.

For context, the single judge had recognised the “right to be forgotten” and laid down the framework for de-indexing and masking of personal information from judicial records available online.

It is Indian Kanoon's case that the ruling unduly curtails the principles of open justice and the public's right to access judicial records.

During the hearing today, Datar submitted that the overarching public interest is that all the judgments, whether of acquittal or discharge or conviction, are maintained as part of judicial records.

He said that the single judge's order needs to be reversed and that a judgment once published and becomes part of the judicial system should be accessible to all. He added that the judgment can only be masked by the concerned judge who passed it and not otherwise. He also emphasised that access to a judicial record cannot be blocked in any manner.

Datar also submitted that the single judge's reasoning, that attention must be paid to factors like the purpose and relevant impact of a ruling, is incorrect as it is a highly subjective situation.

“For example the 2G scam. After spending years in jail, the accused were acquitted. Can you say remove all the records pertaining to the 2G scam? The matter is now pending in Supreme Court. That (record) cannot be erased because it is has become part of judicial record,” he said.

“If a lawyer is published for contempt and the Supreme Court later discharges him. Can he say remove my name or judgment? No. You have been convicted so you have been convicted. You are acquitted later. That is a record that cannot be erased at all,” he added.

On this, the Bench remarked,

“The single judge has not said that don't allow access to this person's record altogether. Suppose a person is acquitted, see to it that you cannot access previous record of district court or the high court. That may have been one view assuming the judge was of the view that it is so very essential in public interest or private interest that nothing is accessible. But to say I will allow access by case number or by XYZ but not by name search, we are only wondering…. Either you take a view that you don't allow access. But to say I will allow access by ABCDE and not by F. Is that a view a court can take?”

“We have so many cases. Masking comes in so many matters. For example in IP litigation that these are confidential information that must be masked or the price should not be disclosed or agreements should not be disclosed. That's individual issues brought up in individual cases by individuals plaintiffs. Then the court takes the call. Can a person go to court and say guidelines be laid down that these be followed? Assuming guidelines are laid down. How is it binding on another court? At the highest, the subordinate court is bound to follow,” the Bench added.

Datar responded by saying that once a judgment is put in the judicial information system, “no one can touch it.”

“Nobody can do deindexing or masking qua any judicial record,” he said while concluding his submissions.

The matter will now be heard on September 16 when Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal will commence his submissions for the respondent in one of the appeals.

The single judge, in its judgment delivered on May 29, directed search engines and legal database platforms to de-index and disable name-based search functionality in respect of judgments, orders and news articles covered by the petitions.

Holding that right to be forgotten is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the single judge laid down the framework governing de-indexing and masking of personal information from judicial records available online.

Indian Kanoon, in appeal, has argued that the direction is “overboard” and prejudices the constitutional values of open justice and the right to information.

The appeal states that once information forms part of public court records, the right to privacy ordinarily does not survive over those records except in recognised statutory or judicial exceptions such as sexual offence cases, juvenile matters and other protected proceedings.

The appeal also submits that name-based searches are integral to legal research and are widely used by lawyers, litigants, researchers, students and even judges for locating precedents. Restricting such searches, it argues, disproportionately affects its business and infringes its freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India.

Title: IKANOON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD v. X & ORS & other connected matters

Case Number: LPA-583/2026