Right to be forgotten: Delhi High Court calls for masking of couple’s names on search engines

The Delhi High Court recently directed its Registry to remove the names of an estranged couple from the records of a criminal case related to their matrimonial dispute.

Justice Amit Mahajan also permitted the man to approach all concerned portals and public search engines to mask the identities. The Court said that the portals and search engines are expected to follow the principle of ‘right to privacy’ and ‘right to be forgotten’.

“The need to allow the masking of names of individuals acquitted of any offence or when criminal proceedings against such persons are quashed, emanates from the most basic notions of proportionality and fairness,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that the concept of ‘right to privacy’ incorporates the ‘right to be forgotten’.

“While the access to information is a fundamental aspect of democracy, the same cannot be divorced from the need to balance the right to information of the public with the individual’s right to privacy. This is especially when after the quashing of the proceedings, no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet."

It added that there was no reason why an individual who has been duly cleared of any charges should be allowed to be “haunted by the remnants” of such accusations easily accessible to the public. 

“Such would be contrary to the individual’s right to privacy which includes the right to be forgotten, and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.

In May 2024, the Court had quashed a trial court order directing registration of a first information report (FIR) against the man on his wife’s complaint.

He later sought removal of the case information on the High Court judgment from public access.

While allowing the petition, the Court directed that in future, the Registry, instead of using the names of the parties in this case, shall show the man as ‘ABC’ and his former wife as ‘XYZ’.

The petitioner were represented by Senior Advocate SD Salwan and Advocates Arvind Chaudhary, Sachin Chaudhary and Vinay Yadav.

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar, with Advocates Ajay Verma and Vaishnav Kirti Singh. 

[Read Judgment]