Supreme Court to Deliberate on 'Right to be Forgotten' in Judicial Records: Balancing Privacy and Open Justice

The Supreme Court of India has recently agreed to examine the applicability of the 'Right to be Forgotten' (RTBF) within the realm of judicial records. The core of the matter involves petitions seeking to mask the identities of individuals in judgments published on digital platforms, arguing that the permanent availability of such records online can cause irreparable harm to an individual's reputation and personal life, even after legal proceedings have concluded.

The 'Right to be Forgotten' allows individuals to request the removal of personal data from internet searches and databases when the information is no longer necessary, relevant, or is inaccurate. In India, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the RTBF is considered an inherent part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21, as established by the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017). However, its application to court records presents a unique legal challenge.

On one hand, the principle of 'Open Justice' dictates that judicial proceedings and records should be transparent and accessible to the public to ensure accountability and serve as legal precedents. Under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts are 'Courts of Record,' meaning their proceedings are preserved for perpetual memory and testimony. On the other hand, the 'permanent memory' of the internet means that even an acquittal or a minor legal dispute can haunt an individual indefinitely, affecting employment and social standing.

Currently, Indian law lacks a specific statutory framework for RTBF, although the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, includes provisions for data erasure with certain exceptions for legal obligations. Various High Courts have previously issued conflicting orders on this issue, making the Supreme Court's intervention timely. The eventual ruling will likely define the boundaries of digital privacy and determine how the judiciary balances the right to a 'fresh start' with the public's right to information.