Balancing Privacy and Transparency: Supreme Court to Frame Guidelines on the 'Right to be Forgotten'
The Supreme Court has initiated the process of establishing uniform guidelines for the 'Right to be Forgotten' within judicial records. This move aims to reconcile an individual's right to privacy with the principles of open justice and the public's right to information.
The Supreme Court of India has recently taken a significant step toward institutionalizing the 'Right to be Forgotten' (RTBF) by initiating the process to frame uniform guidelines. This development addresses the growing concern over how permanent digital footprints in judicial records can infringe upon an individual’s right to privacy and dignity, even after legal disputes are resolved.
The 'Right to be Forgotten' allows individuals to request the removal of personal information from the public domain, particularly from internet search results, when such data is no longer necessary or relevant. While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment recognized it as an inherent facet of the Right to Privacy under Article 21. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, also touches upon the right to correction and erasure, but its application to judicial records remains a complex legal frontier.
The primary challenge for the judiciary lies in balancing this right with the principle of 'Open Justice'—the idea that court proceedings and records should be transparent and accessible to the public to ensure accountability. Currently, various High Courts have taken divergent views; some allow the masking of names in sensitive cases like matrimonial disputes or sexual offenses, while others emphasize the sanctity of public records. The Supreme Court’s intervention aims to resolve this inconsistency by creating a standardized protocol.
The proposed guidelines are expected to examine whether sensitive personal data in judgments can be masked or if search engines can be directed to 'de-index' certain links once a case is concluded. This is particularly relevant for individuals who have been acquitted of crimes but continue to face social stigma and professional hurdles due to easily searchable court records that remain online indefinitely.
Continue reading — free with login
JeetoBharat publishes daily UPSC current affairs mapped to the Mains syllabus. Log in to read full articles.
Log in to read full articleNo credit card required. Free registered users get unlimited access.
This article was curated using AI. While we strive for accuracy, please verify critical facts from official sources.