Should News Reports Be Deleted On Discharge Of Accused? Supreme Court To Examine Scope Of 'Right To Be Forgotten'

The Supreme Court on Friday held that a Delhi High Court order directing the digital platform of Indian Express to remove certain news reports concerning the arrest of a former banker in a money laundering case would not operate as a precedent in other cases.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea filed by IE Online Media Services Private Limited challenging the Delhi High Court judgment directing removal and de-indexing of certain articles, after the banker was discharged from the offence.

The Court issued notice on the plea and granted interim relief to Indian Express holding that that the impugned judgment shall not operate as precedent in subsequent cases.

“Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Arvind Datar submitted that the material which the first respondent claims to be offensive herein has already been taken down pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court. He however, submitted that the impugned directions ought not to be a precedent for subsequent cases and hence balancing the interests of the respective parties, the impugned order may be stayed. We find force in the submissions made by Learned Senior Counsel Shri Datar. Hence taking note of the fact that there has been compliance with the impugned order insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order shall not be a precedent for subsequent cases”, the Court ordered.

Justice Nagarathna noted that the case involves the question of how the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten under Article 21 is to be reconciled with Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Justice Bhuyan observed, “A wall of privacy is sought to be erected so that the citizens will not have access to information. It's not good for democracy.”

Background Facts

One bank manager, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in August 2023 in connection with the alleged Moser Baer chopper scam. Several media platforms, including Indian Express, reported his arrest.

He was discharged by the jurisdictional court on August 17, 2024. He filed a civil suit on October 06, 2025, seeking injunctions and damages, and invoking the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten. The civil court granted a temporary injunction in his favour which was upheld by the Delhi High Court. Thus, Indian Express filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court

Supreme Court proceedings

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar for Indian Express submitted that the reports were based on official actions and court proceedings. He pointed out that the appellant had not only reported the arrest but also the subsequent and even the High Court's criticism of ED for implicating Bhatnagar. He further submitted, “you can't be forgotten if it is a news item.”

Datar urged the Court to lay down a proposition of law as several High Courts, including Rajasthan, Punjab, Madras and Delhi, were dealing with similar petitions seeking takedown of news reports.

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, he submitted that the right to privacy does not include a right to erase history. He contended that if a Supreme Court makes adverse remarks and those are later set aside, the earlier reports cannot be erased as they reflect what transpired.

“Because in para 635 of Puttuswamy, they say that the right to privacy does not include a right to erase history. You can't erase history…Suppose for example, Supreme Court passes adverse comments on so and so and later on their petition is allowed. Can you say take down what Supreme Court is saying? That Your Lordships passed adverse remarks that is news. So, please grant an early date because it will be a very landmark ruling. What is right to be forgotten? What is the relationship of privacy? Article 19(1)(a) and 21.”

Illustrating further, Datar said, “Suppose there is a scholar. He's doing research into certain bank issues. He goes to the Harshad Mehta scam. Now, can you say that Harshad Mehta was acquitted therefore, take it down? Those news reports will be there.”

Datar further submitted that the fact of arrest by the ED was true and a subsequent discharge does not render earlier factual reporting defamatory.

Datar also submitted that the defamation suit was barred by limitation as Article 75 of the Limitation Act prescribes one year from the date of publication. He highlighted that Bhatnagar took the ground of right to be forgotten only after he had point out that defamation is time barred. He contended that the trial court had granted final relief at an interim stage by directing takedown while keeping the main suit pending.

He further informed the Court that there were eight similar petitions filed against Indian Express, and expressed concern that the impugned judgment would be cited as an authority in other cases.

Datar submitted that in the present case the impugned report was a two-page article which, apart from mentioning Bhatnagar, also dealt with broader issues including ED action and the alleged helicopter matter. He argued that it was not possible to remove only one name and that the entire report had to be taken down, resulting in the disappearance of report concerning the ED raid.

Ultimately, the Court issued notice returnable on March 16 on the plea and, held that the impugned judgment shall not operate as precedent in subsequent cases. The Court however, did not stay the proceedings before the civil court.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 4054-4055/2026

Case Title – IE Online Media Services Private Limited v. N B