Right to Be Forgotten Gets Judicial Backing: Supreme Court Allows Acquitted Man to Remove Online Case Records
- ByAdmin --
- 21 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a significant step toward digital privacy and rehabilitation, the Supreme Court of India has recognized the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) in the context of criminal acquittals. The judgment allows individuals who have been acquitted of criminal charges to request the removal or delisting of their names from online search results and digital databases, marking a crucial milestone in balancing public interest, press freedom, and personal dignity.
The Case: A Man Cleared by Court, Still Convicted Online
The petitioner, a Delhi-based engineer, was falsely accused of criminal conspiracy and cheating in a corporate case in 2014. After a protracted five-year trial, he was fully acquitted by a trial court, with the judgment explicitly stating that the case was "baseless and motivated."
However, long after the verdict:
- His name continued to appear in Google search results linked to old news reports.
- Recruiters, landlords, and even clients refused to work with him, assuming guilt.
- He suffered emotional trauma, reputational damage, and professional loss.
With no remedy under existing Indian statutes, he filed a writ petition under Article 21, seeking enforcement of the Right to Be Forgotten.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Dignity After Acquittal Is a Constitutional Right
A two-judge bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul ruled in favor of the petitioner, making key constitutional observations:
1. Right to Privacy Includes the Right to Be Forgotten
Citing the landmark Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) verdict, the Court held that the right to privacy includes control over personal data, including what remains in the public domain after a person has been exonerated by law.
“Innocence once established must not be eclipsed by digital permanence,” the judgment stated.
2. Criminal Justice Ends with Acquittal—Not Online Stigma
The Court emphasized that once a person is acquitted, continuing public association with a criminal charge serves no legitimate public interest and amounts to cruelty through data permanence.
- News articles, digital archives, and search engines have the power to shape perceptions.
- The state must ensure that an acquitted person is not made to “serve a life sentence in search engines.”
3. Need for Regulatory Safeguards
While the Court did not order a blanket takedown of all past digital content, it directed:
- Search engines (like Google) to de-index specific URLs upon judicial proof of acquittal.
- News portals to add clarifications or updates indicating the case outcome when requested by the affected person.
- The Ministry of Electronics and IT to frame guidelines for Right to Be Forgotten implementation.
Implications: India’s First Major Judicial Endorsement of RTBF
This ruling:
- Establishes judicial precedent for future petitions invoking the Right to Be Forgotten.
- Helps acquitted persons, survivors of cyberbullying, or victims of revenge porn to seek digital removal.
- Pushes India closer toward a comprehensive data protection regime, as envisioned under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which partially recognizes RTBF.
Where Indian Law Stands on RTBF
India currently does not have a codified Right to Be Forgotten, unlike:
- European Union (EU), which formally recognizes it under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- In the EU, individuals can ask for the erasure of personal data where it's no longer necessary or if consent is withdrawn.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides limited rights for data deletion but lacks an enforcement framework. This judgment bridges that gap by making RTBF judicially actionable—at least for acquitted individuals.
Public and Legal Reactions
Digital rights groups like the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) welcomed the ruling, calling it a “progressive move in protecting human dignity in the digital era.”
However, some media organizations raised concerns about press freedom, noting that court judgments are public records, and deleting them may limit access to history or judicial accountability.
The Court responded with balance:
- RTBF must be applied case-by-case.
- Serious crimes, public officials, or ongoing trials are not eligible.
- The goal is not to rewrite history, but to prevent lifelong punishment for acquitted individuals.
When the Court Clears You, the Internet Must Follow
This judgment is a milestone for Indian privacy jurisprudence. It doesn’t ask society to forget crime—it asks society to remember the verdict.
In an age where digital searches precede first impressions, this verdict gives the acquitted a second chance—to live, work, and walk freely without a shadow of a trial they won.
Because justice doesn’t end at acquittal—it ends when the world lets you move on.
RELATED Blog
0 comments