New Delhi: Right to be forgotten case came under sharp scrutiny during a Delhi high court hearing involving Indian Kanoon, one of India’s most widely used free legal databases.
The Court observed that removing or masking judgments from free public databases could make legal research difficult for thousands of lawyers who cannot afford expensive subscription-based legal platforms.
The observations were made by a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar while hearing appeals related to the “right to be forgotten” and access to judicial records.
What Is The Indian Kanoon Right To Be Forgotten Case
The case concerns a judgment delivered by Justice Sachin Datta on June 1. The earlier ruling recognized an individual’s right to be forgotten and allowed people to seek removal of their names from searchable versions of court records when the information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose.
Read also: The Constitutional Principle Delhi High Court Says India Cannot Ignore
The decision was later challenged by Indian Kanoon, which argued that implementing such directions creates serious practical and legal issues.
Why Did The Delhi High Court Express Concern
The Bench stressed that free access to judgments is extremely important for legal professionals. According to the Court, many lawyers, especially young practitioners and those working independently, depend heavily on free legal databases for research and case preparation.
The judges noted that if judgments become inaccessible through ordinary searches, it could affect the ability of lawyers to perform their work effectively.
Court Says Paid Databases Are Not A Complete Solution
During the hearing, the Court observed that judgments being available on paid legal databases does not solve the problem. The Bench noted that many legal professionals cannot afford expensive annual subscriptions offered by premium legal research platforms.
According to the Court, if a judgment cannot be found through a normal search on free platforms, it becomes practically inaccessible for a large section of lawyers.
Impact of Right To Be Forgotten On Legal Livelihood
The Court highlighted that access to legal judgments is closely linked to the livelihood of lawyers. The Bench observed that restricting easy access to judgments could indirectly affect the professional work of advocates who rely on legal precedents for representing clients.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal Defends Right To Be Forgotten
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for a respondent, argued that the right to be forgotten does not completely erase judicial records. He submitted that judgments continue to exist and can still be accessed through alternative methods, although they may become harder to find.
According to Sibal, the judicial record remains available even if personal identifiers are removed from searchable databases.
Privacy Rights Must Also Be Considered
Sibal argued that individuals whose names continue to appear in court records may face long-term reputational consequences. He emphasized that people who have been discharged from cases or cleared of allegations should have meaningful privacy protections.
According to the submissions, the right to be forgotten seeks to balance public access to information with individual privacy rights.
Delhi High Court Questions Practical Impact
The Bench observed that when a judgment’s case title is hidden or masked, access becomes significantly more difficult.
The judges questioned whether alternative search methods such as case numbers or judgment dates are practical for everyday legal research. The Court pointed out that lawyers generally remember case names rather than case numbers from older matters.
Public Access Versus Privacy
The hearing focused on finding a balance between privacy rights and public access to judicial records. The Court noted that privacy claims are often accepted in matters involving personal relationships, family issues, or intimate personal information. However, it also questioned whether public court records should become difficult to access when they are already part of the public domain.
Why This Case Is Important
The outcome of this case could affect how judgments are displayed and searched on legal databases across India. A final decision may influence future policies on privacy, public records, legal transparency, and digital access to court judgments.
Impact On Lawyers And Litigants
The case is being closely watched by lawyers, legal researchers, law students, and technology platforms. It could define how courts balance an individual’s privacy rights against the public’s right to access judicial information.
FAQs
Indian Kanoon argues that implementing the right to be forgotten in searchable court records creates practical difficulties and may restrict public access to legal judgments.
The case concerns whether individuals can have their names removed or masked from searchable court records while maintaining access to judicial decisions and public records.
The Court observed that many lawyers cannot afford expensive legal research subscriptions, making free databases essential for accessing judgments and legal precedents.
