Scope of the “right to be forgotten” (RTBF)

Syllabus:GS2/Governance 

In News

• The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging a December 2025 Delhi High Court ruling that ordered the removal of past news reports about a banker discharged in a money laundering case, raising questions on the scope of the “right to be forgotten” (RTBF). 

Background and Origin of Right to be Forgotten

• The Right to be Forgotten originated from a 2014 European Court of Justice ruling in the Google Spain case, where a Spanish man sought the removal of outdated information about his past debts.
• The principle was later incorporated into the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation through Article 17, which establishes the right to erasure while also setting conditions under which this right may be limited.

What is the Right to be Forgotten?

• The “Right to be Forgotten” is the right to remove or erase content so that it’s not accessible to the public at large. 
• It empowers an individual to have information in the form of news, video, or photographs deleted from internet records so it doesn’t show up through search engines, like Google in the present case.

Importance 

• Protection of Privacy: It prevents lasting harm from outdated or irrelevant personal information.
• Digital Dignity: It ensures past mistakes or allegations do not cause permanent stigma.
• Global Alignment: It brings India in line with international standards like the EU’s GDPR.
• Balanced Rights: It helps balance individual privacy with press freedom and public interest.
• Rehabilitation: It supports rehabilitation and reintegration, especially for acquitted individuals or those who have served sentences.

Challenges

• Content removal can clash with press freedom and risk censorship.
• Courts must assess whether privacy outweighs legitimate public interest.
• The DPDP Act, 2023 offers limited recognition without clear RTBF procedures.
• Removing data across platforms, archives and search engines is complex.
• A surge in RTBF petitions could strain court resources.
• Influential individuals may misuse RTBF to hide past wrongdoing and reduce transparency.

The law on the Right to be Forgotten

• Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 holds organisations liable to pay damages for failing to protect sensitive personal data. 
• The IT Rules, 2021 do not recognise the Right to Be Forgotten but they provide a grievance mechanism to seek removal of content exposing personal information.
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025 together establish a citizen-centric data protection framework based on principles like consent, transparency, security and accountability, define key data roles, create the Data Protection Board of India for enforcement, and impose heavy penalties for violations, thereby strengthening privacy and trust in India’s digital ecosystem.

 Judicial observations 

• Although not expressly provided by statute in India, the “right to be forgotten” has been recognised by courts as part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 since the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India.
  • The Court, referring to the EU’s 2016 regulation, acknowledged an individual’s right to remove personal data that is no longer necessary, relevant, accurate, or desired to be processed, while also clarifying that this right is not absolute and may be limited by freedom of expression, legal obligations, public interest, public health, research, or legal claims.
•  In Jorawar Singh Mundy vs Union of India (2021), the Delhi High Court applied this principle by directing the removal of online records of a narcotics case in which the petitioner had been acquitted, noting that continued online availability was harming his employment prospects despite his acquittal.

 Way Ahead

• The Right to be Forgotten in India stands at a pivotal stage, requiring a careful balance between individual privacy and concerns of free speech, public interest and technological feasibility. 
• Moving forward will require a clear and comprehensive legal framework with defined limits, independent oversight for adjudicating requests, and consistent judicial guidance. 
• Adopting proportionality-based standards, strengthening technological cooperation with digital platforms, and increasing public awareness—while embedding safeguards against misuse—will be essential to ensure that RTBF evolves in line with constitutional values and democratic accountability.

Source :IE