From Being Forgotten To Being Found: Balancing Digital Reputation With Right To Information & Freedom Of Press

India, following the recognition of right to privacy as a fundamental right by a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., has embraced the Right to be Forgotten through judicial orders.

However, as digital ecosystems mature, a deeper problem has emerged— erasure does not always preserve rights or triumph truth.

In many cases, initial accusations receive massive coverage from the media, etching the public memory. Whereas subsequent acquittals are ignored, resulting in lasting damage to an individual's reputation. Objectively speaking, harm is then not caused by the presence of outdated information, but by the absence or invisibility of correct and exculpatory information.

For instance, Right to Be Forgotten pales into insignificance in high profile cases, where no matter the redaction— the public knows the identity of the accused.

The Madras High Court had, back in 2021, recognised this predicament when it said that erasure may prove to be “counterproductive” for a person if they want to prove their innocence.

Even speaking constitutionally, the Right to be Forgotten presents a fundamental conflict with the Right to Information and the Freedom of Press.

This gap has given rise to an emerging idea: the Right to be Found.

While not formally recognised in any jurisdiction, the Right to be Found offers a more nuanced approach to digital reputation, one that may be better suited to constitutional democracies.

What Is Right to Be Found?

The Right to be Found refers to an individual's right to ensure that accurate, updated, and exonerating information about them is visible, discoverable, and contextualised online, particularly when older adverse material continues to dominate public perception.

The Right to be Found doesn't seek deletion or suppression information. It rather promotes updating of archive reports, linking of acquittal or quashing orders to prior allegations, and contextualisation of information so that truth is not fragmented by algorithms. In essence, it addresses informational imbalance in the public domain.

A writ of mandamus may be issued to media houses, to update their prior reports with subsequent developments and/or to run a fresh report intimating the public of the latest development. This would instantly serve a dual purpose— preserve individual dignity by contextualisation and foster the citizens' right to information.

Why Right to Be Found?

The Right to Be Forgotten often attracts criticism for encouraging historical amnesia. Courts may be understandably reluctant to delete judgments or news reports that were factually correct at the time of publication.

The Right to be Found avoids this problem. It retains the historical record while ensuring that subsequent developments—such as acquittals—are equally accessible. This preserves the “whole” truth instead of erasing history and strengthens the integrity of public records.

Erasure-based remedies also sit in direct tension with freedom of expression. De-indexing orders against search engines or takedown directives to media houses can appear as judicially mandated silence.

The Supreme Court recently said that a Delhi High Court order directing a digital platform to remove certain news reports concerning the arrest of a former banker in a money laundering case, following his discharge, would not operate as a precedent in other cases.

This, because the Top Court felt that erasure of past information is not innocuous. Rather, it raises the question of how the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten under Article 21 of the Constitution is to be reconciled with Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(a).

A mature understanding of digital rights must acknowledge that the Press has a legitimate constitutional right to report arrests, remands, and ongoing criminal proceedings when they concern matters of public interest or public importance. Such reporting, if accurate at the time of publication, does not become unlawful merely because the accused is later acquitted. The Indian Constitution is not known to mandate erasure of truthful journalism. Nor does it impose retrospective silence on the press. What it demands however, is fairness.

In this context, the Right to be Found promotes freedom of speech and expression. It requires addition of context rather than removal of content, making it more compatible with constitutional free-speech guarantees.

Also significant to note that modern reputational harm is rarely caused by publication alone; it is caused by algorithmic prioritisation. Search engines amplify the first arrest report but rarely elevate the acquittal that followed years later.

The Right to be Forgotten responds by hiding information. The Right to be Found responds by correcting algorithmic asymmetry.

If the Right to be Found is recognised, privacy will imperturbably be balanced with citizens' right to information and the freedom of press. Instead of censoring information in a democracy, the Right to be Found obligates digital platforms to provide complete, accurate information and paves way for redemption of the affected party. Past arrest which culminates into acquittal— has to be reported. Past conviction, which is later overturned— has to be amplified.

Limitations

The Right to be Found concededly can't be applied universally and its limitations become particularly pronounced in matrimonial and family law disputes, where privacy interests are fundamentally different from criminal or commercial cases.

In matrimonial cases, visibility itself can be harmful. Unlike criminal cases involving public wrongs, matrimonial disputes are intensely personal, emotionally charged and closely tied to dignity, sexuality, mental health, and family reputation.

A Right to be Found, by increasing visibility of judgments (even favourable ones), may re-traumatize spouses and perpetuate the social stigma both parties want to escape.

Another complication is that family disputes often involve cross-allegations, settlements without adjudication, withdrawals and mediation-based resolutions. In such cases, there is no truth to be “found”.

Recognising this limitation however, does not weaken the concept— it anchors it in Constitutional realism. Constitutional rights are not abstractions applied uniformly across all contexts but have to be enforced with careful calibration by the Judiciary.

Right to Be Forgotten: Easier Conceptually, Harder Constitutionally

The Right to Be Forgotten is procedurally straightforward—content is removed or de-indexed. However, it faces resistance from media organisations, invites constitutional scrutiny under free speech, and raises concerns about transparency and public interest.

Right to Be Found on the other hand, though presents technical challenges, such as linking content across platforms and dealing with proprietary search algorithms, is normatively easier to justify as it does not silence anyone but— promotes accuracy and completeness.

From a constitutional perspective, courts may find it easier to mandate contextualisation and updating, rather than erasure.

Comparative Perspectives

The EU does not recognise a Right to be Found as such. In fact, France is credited for the birth of the Right to be Forgotten and focuses on de-indexing under privacy principles. Even the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) explicitly recognizes the Right to Erasure under Article 17.

However, a closer look at the provisions— Article 16 (right to rectification) and Article 5 (accuracy, transparency and fairness), require data controllers to ensure that information is not misleading due to incompleteness— achieving the functional equivalent of the Right to be Found.

In the United States, adoption of the Right to be Forgotten seems unlikely, given the country's emphasis on First Amendment freedoms. In Search King, Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc. (2003), a US Court dismissed a lawsuit against Google and held that its search rankings are subjective results which are constitutionally protected “opinions”.

Right to be Found on the other hand, does not stifle expression and is arguably more aligned with the First Amendment.

Towards Informational Justice, Not Informational Silence

The digital age has made memory permanent but correction optional. The Right to be Forgotten responds by hiding the past; the Right to be Found responds by completing the narrative, with truth and completeness.

While no jurisdiction has formally named this right, many have already embraced its logic. As courts grapple with reputational harm in algorithm-driven ecosystems, the future likely lies not in erasure, but in visibility of truth.

For countries like India—where dignity, reputation, and fairness are constitutional values—the Right to be Found may well represent the next evolution of digital rights jurisprudence.

Views Personal. Author may be reached at akshita@livelaw.in