On May 29, Delhi High Court passed a landmark combined judgement in over 37 cases, ordering search giant Google to de-index judgements, news reporting and ordered Indian Kanoon to restrict particular name-based search functionality.
On July 10, Indian Kanoon filed a petition challenging this order. Here are the nine arguments raised in the petition accessed by MediaNama.
You can refer to Delhi HC’s judgement here: PDF | Markdown file | MediaNama Explainer
Some context: In 2019, an individual identified in court records only as “DG” was convicted in a cheque-bounce case and sentenced to four months in prison, along with a fine. While his appeal was pending in 2022, DG settled the matter with the complainant for Rs 7.25 lakh, and the case was formally close.
Despite the settlement, the judgment rightfully remained searchable on Indian Kanoon’s website under his original name.
Later, in 2023, DG filed a writ petition asking the Delhi High Court to direct Indian Kanoon to remove those court records. This is one of 38 similar petitions from different individuals that the court eventually heard together. The above-mentioned judgment ruled in DG’s favour as well in the favour of right to be forgotten doctrine. Since it was a combined judgement the order went further than this individual case alone. Delhi HC directed legal databases to de-index and disable name-based search functionality for the records named across all 38 petitions, the ruling Indian Kanoon is now appealing.
- Puttaswamy judgement never created a “right to be forgotten” principle; Delhi HC ‘misconstrued’ it
Indian Kanoon argues the Delhi High Court has misread the 2017 Puttaswamy privacy judgment which recognised privacy as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, but its discussion of a “right to be forgotten” was only a passing observation by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, not “does not provide an unqualified right to be forgotten from historical or judicial records,” argues the petition.
How did fundamental right to privacy Puttaswamy judgement referred right to be forgotten?
“Thus, The European Union Regulation of 2016 has recognized what has been termed as ‘the right to be forgotten’. This does not mean that all aspects of earlier existence are to be obliterated, as some may have a social ramification. If we were to recognize a similar right, it would only mean that an individual who is no longer desirous of his personal data to be processed or stored, should be able to remove it from the system where the personal data/ information is no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest. Such a right cannot be exercised where the information/ data is necessary, for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, for compliance with legal obligations, for the performance of a task carried out in public interest, on the grounds of public interest in the area of public health, for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. Such justifications would be valid in all cases of breach of privacy, including breaches of data privacy.” — SANJAY KISHAN KAUL in the 9-0 Judgement that rules privacy as the fundamental right. (PDF of the judgement)
What did Delhi HC said about Puttaswamy in May 2026 order: “The right of an individual to move beyond a chapter of life that the law has formally closed, as recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) as an aspect of the right to privacy, is directly involved in the present petition. In the circumstances, the concerned respondents/ search engine operators/ legal data base platforms are directed to de-index, and disable, across all platforms and domains, name-based search functionality in respect of the judgments/orders/news articles complained of in the petition.”
- The judgment goes beyond what Article 19’s free speech restrictions go and courts can’t use privacy for new restrictions
Restrictions on free speech and expression can only be imposed on the specific grounds listed under Article 19(2), like public order, decency, or defamation. Indian Kanoon says courts cannot use “privacy” as a disguise to create fresh, unlisted grounds for restricting speech.
- The vague and broad undefined terms can lead to arbitrary censorship of public court records.
The judgment says information can be delisted if it is “no longer relevant” or serves “no legitimate public purpose.” Indian Kanoon argues these terms are undefined and subjective. Without a clear, limited list of situations where names should be masked, different judges can reach different conclusions therefore leading to inconsistent and possible arbitrary censorship of public court records.
“Where information is demonstrably false, its continued name-based searchability has no claim to protection on the ground of continuing relevance. The principles of open justice and public interest, lend no support to the perpetuation of a demonstrably false association between a person and those proceedings. (supra), the lawfulness of processing personal data is not static but must be assessed in light of its continued necessity and relevance. Where information has become inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to any purpose that can be identified, its continued searchability fails the proportionality test.” — Delhi HC May 29 order by Sachin Datta.
- The existence of evidence-based harms should have been weighed rather than assumed harms
The petition argued that Delhi HC’s order for global de-indexing was passed without determining if the real harms really existed and asserted its judgement on the assumed harm.
“The particular harm identified is the continued availability of the anticipatory bail order, which records the dismissal of bail by the Sessions Court before its grant by this Court, creating a misleading picture of the petitioner’s legal position.” — Delhi HC May 29 order by Sachin Datta.
While the Delhi HC judgment says masking of lower-court records should ideally be handled by the particular originating court, it didn’t actually specify the duty of harm assessment back to those courts. Rather, it issued the blanket order, states the petition.
- Indian Kanoon is not the right source to solve the enforce individuals’ ‘right’ to be forgotten
The petition argues that editing the original names should happen at the source-level, i.e., at the courts, where they hold and publish these public records.
They further say that such restrictions can’t be imposed directly on private platforms like Indian Kanoon that simply republish public data.
- Why name just Indian Kanoon while other legal archives and databases exists?
“The Impugned Judgment has arbitrarily and in violation of the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution made directions for disabling name-based search functionality only against one legal database,” reads India Kanoon’s petition.
It argues that there are several other legal databases and case-tracking platforms exist the order specifically names and applies to only to Indian Kanoon, which it says is a violation of Article 14.
- Restricting name-based search functionality will impact Indian Kanoon’s business
Searching by party name is the primary way lawyers, litigants, students, researchers use Indian Kanoon platform and it argues that letting individuals request removal of their names on a case-by-case basis would erode the tool’s core utility, effectively impacting their business.
“If individual litigants are given the impetus to seek deletion of their names, i.e., redaction of case names from the Petitioner’s database, it has a direct adverse impact on the usability and utility of the Petitioner’s legal search engine, thereby impairing the Petitioner’s freedom to carry out its business, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.” — Indian Kanoon’s petition.
- Removing it from one database can’t achieve real anonymity
It argues that the court records also live in news reports, social media, and other publications. Indian Kanoon says the ruling failed to realise this reality and even if it removes a name and if the same information exists elsewhere, so the order doesn’t meaningfully protect privacy while still damaging the platform’s utility and business.
A more coherent fix would start with rules requiring courts to redact sensitive records at the source-level (courts) based on the evidence-based harms assessments.
- The Delhi HC wrongly distinguished this case from one pending at the Supreme Court
A related case, Ikanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Karthick Theodore, is currently before the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court ordered an entire judgment taken down (not just anonymised) on similar facts. Indian Kanoon argues the Delhi High Court’s attempt to treat the present matter as different from that pending case doesn’t hold up, since the underlying relief sought was essentially the same under the same right to be forgotten doctrine.
Read all MediaNama’s previous coverage on right to be forgotten here.
Also Read:
