With the unparalleled advancement of information and technology the world today is under the clutches of social media, exposing the most intricate details of human lives- both positive and negative. The boundaries of privacy are blurring more than ever. Right to be forgotten is an evolving right in India. Often referred to as the right to erasure, this concept can traced back to the French jurisprudence on ‘Right to oblivion’ or Droit a loubli in 2010. “Europe, in European Union has, over privacy and personal data, evolved the principle of a right to be forgotten, as a right to be a part of one’s right to personality, which encompasses dignity, honour and the right to a private life.” It is defined as “the ability of individuals to limit, de-link, delete, or correct the disclosure of personal information on the internet that is misleading, embarrassing, irrelevant, or anachronistic.”
At present India has no statutory framework to regulate this right but the concept has been referenced in the context of privacy and digital rights. Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 was the first attempt of India to codify right to be forgotten however, the bill was not ratified by the Parliament. A more comprehensive Act to regulate personal data online was introduced in 2023 namely Digital Personal Data Protection Act that recognises the right to erasure however, its application to court records and publicly available data remains uncertain with conflicting interpretations in the courts. Information Technology Rules 2021 requires intermediaries to disable or remove access to content violating privacy within 24 hours of a complaint. Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognised the right to be forgotten as an aspect of right to privacy that emanates from Article 21. However, it imposed certain limitations on the grounds of fulfilment of legal responsibilities, executing duty in public interest, safeguarding information in larger public interest, for scientific or historical studies, matters related to any legal claim and exercising freedom of expression and information. Justice Kaul stated that “Right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control his/her own life would also encompass his right to control his existence on the Internet.” Thus acknowledging that people often make mistakes and their digital footprints should not prevent their ability to reform. D.Y. Chandrachud said that “The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the State but from non-State actors as well. We commend to the Union government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the State.”
In Karthick Theodore v. The Registrar General 2021 Madras High Court held that due to lack of legislation regulating data protection, the burden is on judiciary to fill the gap. It ruled that people who have been accused of offenses and later acquitted by the court have a right to deletion of information from the internet. In Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd. and Ors 2018 Delhi High Court held that right to be left alone is a part of the right to privacy. It ruled in favour of plaintiff and directed the respondent to remove from the internet #metoo posts alleging sexual harassment. Kerala High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 9478 of 2016 passed an interim order to Indian Kanoon, a legal database website to remove the name of rape victim from the documents while in Dharamraj Dave v. State of Gujarat 2015 Court rejected the plea for permanent restraint on display and indexing of non-reportable judgment from the internet on grounds of lack of legal provisions establishing his right to erasure. In Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar General & Ors 2017 Karnataka High Court observed that “This would be in line with the trend in western countries of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned.” Court gave relief only to the extent of deleting copies of the case from an internet search however certified copies of the case were permitted on the High Court website. In Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka the petition was allowed with the observation that “The direction would be only to enable the internet to forget, like humans forget. If it is allowed to stay on record, the internet will never permit humans to forget.”
In the digital age, individuals must have the right to regulate their identity and personal information. Presence of incorrect or out-dated information online or personal information shared online without consent can be detrimental to an individual’s professional and personal life. People should not be continually punished for the repercussions of their past actions especially when they have shown change and moved on. The right to forget ensures right to be free from unjust judgment and helps mitigate collateral damage by removing unlawfully disclosed or out-dated data.
The right to forget poses complex issues. Lack of comprehensive legal framework and different High Courts giving varied rulings adds to the confusion about the application and implication of this right leading to inconsistent enforcement and potential legal ambiguity. Also the varying approach of courts may raise concerns of overreach and integrity of digital records. It is challenging for courts to strike a balance between individual privacy rights and principles of open justice and public access to information thus making it difficult to standardise guidelines. Private entities run the risk of being pressurised to remove content which could potentially impact the veracity and quality of online data. Enforcing the right across digital platforms and jurisdictions may be problematic due to technical limitations and compliance issues such as data replication and freedom of press.
Right to forget is still in its preliminary stage in India. Courts must find a way to protect personal privacy without stepping on the accessibility and credibility of public court records. Balancing privacy and public interest is crucial. It is essential to work on establishing definite legal guidelines, limitations and redressal mechanisms to effectively imbibe this right in every citizen and prevent its misuse. Encourage industry self-regulation to ensure responsible data handling practices. Robust legal and technical methods are needed to ensure compliance from search engines, websites and other intermediaries. Investment in research and development to address technical challenges related to anonymity and data deletion will go a long way. Educating public about data privacy rights and responsibilities will foster a culture of responsible online behaviour. It is high time that we rethink about the kind of impact out digital footprint has on the web.
Add a Comment