Right to Be Forgotten in India: What Indian Kanoon's Appeal Against the Delhi High Court Means for Court Records

Last updated: July 15, 2026 | By Reetika Gupta, Partner, Aristo Legal

On May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court held that the right to be forgotten is part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and directed Google and Indian Kanoon to de-index and restrict name-based search of certain judicial records (mainly acquittals, discharges, and settled or private matters).

Indian Kanoon has since appealed to a division bench, arguing that the ruling's key standards i.e. whether information is "no longer relevant" or serves a "legitimate public purpose" are undefined, and that this will turn every de-indexing request into a separate legal battle. The appeal is listed for hearing on July 21, 2026.

For businesses and individuals thinking about their own digital footprint in Indian court records, this case will likely set the practical rules for years to come.

What did the Delhi High Court actually order?

In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India and connected matters, Justice Sachin Datta delivered a combined judgment covering 31 petitions from individuals seeking to have references to themselves removed from internet searches of court records — most involving cases that ended in acquittal, discharge, or private settlement.

The Court did not order judgments to be deleted. It drew a distinction between two remedies:

• De-indexing: Directed at search engines (Google) and legal database platforms (Indian Kanoon). The underlying judgment stays exactly where it is — the platform simply stops surfacing it against a name-based search. The order remains fully accessible by case number, citation, court, and date.

  
  

• Masking: A separate, narrower remedy available at the level of the court record itself, where a party's name in the publicly accessible version of a judgment is replaced with a neutral reference, while the original unredacted record is preserved internally. This has to be sought from the court that originally passed the order.

  
  

Google was directed to de-index the relevant content from name-based search results. Indian Kanoon was directed only to restrict name-based search functionality for the specific petitioners' records — a narrower relief than what was sought against Google, since the Court noted this does not substantially interfere with Indian Kanoon's broader public-interest function as a legal database.

Why is Indian Kanoon appealing?

Indian Kanoon (through IKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd) moved a division bench of the Delhi High Court — Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia — on July 14, 2026. The appeal raises three core arguments:

1. The standard is undefined. The single judge's test for de-indexing turns on whether information is "no longer relevant" or fails to serve a "legitimate public purpose." Neither phrase is defined anywhere in law or in the judgment itself, which Indian Kanoon says leaves the door open to inconsistent, case-by-case outcomes rather than a workable rule.

   
   

2. Open justice and public access. Once information is part of a public court record, the appeal argues, privacy interests ordinarily give way to the public's right to access it — subject to recognised exceptions such as sexual offence cases, juvenile matters, and other statutorily protected proceedings. Indian Kanoon contends the ruling extends privacy protection well beyond these established exceptions.

   
   

3. Right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). Name-based search, the appeal argues, is core to how lawyers, litigants, researchers, and even judges locate precedent. Restricting it, Indian Kanoon says, disproportionately affects a legal research platform's ability to function and interferes with its constitutional right to carry on trade.

   
   

The Delhi High Court Bar Association has opposed the appeal, citing its impact on lawyers' practice and livelihood — pointing to how heavily the profession relies on being able to search case records by name.

The matter was listed on July 14 but adjourned — counsel sought a short date since lawyers were abstaining from work that day over an unrelated issue (the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi's district courts). It is now listed for July 21, 2026.

What does "no longer relevant" actually mean right now?

In practice — nothing precise yet, and that is exactly Indian Kanoon's objection. The single judge's order didn't set out a checklist (e.g., a minimum number of years since the case concluded, or a defined list of case outcomes that automatically qualify). Instead, relief was granted petition-by-petition, largely turning on the fact pattern of each individual case — mostly acquittals, discharges, quashed proceedings, or matters of a private nature.

That means, as things stand, anyone wanting a similar remedy has to independently approach the Court and argue their own case on its facts. There is no self-executing standard a platform can apply at scale, and no threshold a business or individual can check against before deciding whether to file a petition.

What does "legitimate public purpose" mean?

This phrase does the work of protecting genuine public-interest records — for instance, matters involving public officials, financial fraud, ongoing criminal proceedings, or cases with continuing relevance to public safety or accountability — from being de-indexed just because a private party finds them inconvenient. But because the judgment doesn't define what counts as sufficient public purpose, or who decides it, this becomes another fact-specific determination for each petition rather than a bright-line rule.

Why this matters beyond individuals seeking privacy

This case sits at the intersection of privacy law and how businesses manage online reputational risk in India. A few groups should be watching the July 21 hearing closely:

• Individuals and businesses with old, resolved litigation (settled disputes, closed criminal matters, quashed FIRs) who want to manage what surfaces against their name online.

  
  

• Legal-tech and research platforms, which now face real uncertainty about how far a "restrict name-based search" order can extend, and what compliance actually requires.

  
  

• HR and compliance teams, since background-check and due-diligence processes commonly involve searching an individual's name against public court records — a practice this case could reshape.

  
  

India does not yet have a standalone statute governing the right to be forgotten. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 addresses related data-privacy concepts but does not squarely cover de-indexing or masking of court records. Until Parliament legislates on this specifically, courts will likely keep resolving these questions case by case — which is exactly the inconsistency Indian Kanoon's appeal is trying to prevent.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the right to be forgotten mean a judgment gets deleted from the internet?

No. The Delhi High Court's order does not delete or take down any judgment. It restricts how the record can be found — specifically, through a name-based search — while keeping it fully accessible by case number, citation, court, and date.

Can I get my own case de-indexed from Google or Indian Kanoon?

Based on the current framework, relief has so far been granted through individual petitions, largely in matters involving acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement. There is no automatic or self-service process yet, and the standard for eligibility remains undefined pending the outcome of this appeal.

What is the difference between de-indexing and masking?

De-indexing happens at the search-engine or database level — the underlying record isn't changed, but it stops appearing in a name-based search. Masking happens at the level of the court record itself, where a party's name is replaced with a neutral reference in the public version of the judgment, sought separately from the court that passed the order.

What law governs the right to be forgotten in India?

There is no dedicated statute yet. The right currently flows from Article 21 (right to privacy, as recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India), and is being shaped through judicial rulings like this one, pending any specific legislation.

This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you are considering a de-indexing or masking request, or need guidance on data privacy and reputational risk arising from court records, Aristo Legal's [corporate and regulatory advisory team] can assist.