Context:
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will likely shape the contours of the “right to be forgotten” in India, similar to the “right to erasure” in European information privacy regulation. The Court must decide whether this right is fundamental in India and how it relates to other constitutional rights.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- The Right to Be Forgotten
- Interpretation in India
- Judicial Rulings in India
The Right to Be Forgotten
- Definition: The right to be forgotten allows individuals to request the removal of their personal data from search engines and other online platforms if it violates their right to privacy or if the information is no longer relevant.
- Origin: This right was recognized by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in May 2014 in the “Google Spain case,” where the court ruled that search engines must remove outdated or irrelevant data upon request.
- EU Framework: Articles 7 (right to private and family life) and 8 (protection of personal data) of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, and Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) support this right.
Interpretation in India:
- Legal Status: India does not have a specific statutory framework for the right to be forgotten. However, the right to privacy, which includes aspects of the right to be forgotten, was recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of India in the 2017 Puttaswamy case.
- Judicial Insights: Justice S.K. Kaul, in his concurring opinion, acknowledged that the right to be forgotten allows individuals to remove personal data when it is no longer relevant or accurate. He also mentioned valid exceptions such as public interest and freedom of expression.
Judicial Rulings in India:
- Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Supreme Court recognized a “right to be let alone,” emphasizing privacy in personal matters but distinguishing it from public records, which are subject to public scrutiny.
- Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs. State Of Gujarat (2017): The Gujarat High Court denied a request to remove details of an acquittal from public records, maintaining that court orders should remain accessible.
- [Name Redacted] vs. The Registrar General (2017): The Karnataka High Court supported protecting a petitioner’s name in an annulment case, aligning with Western trends regarding sensitive cases.
- Jorawar Singh Mundy Case (2021): The Delhi High Court allowed the removal of details related to a criminal case from search results, citing potential harm to the petitioner’s social and professional life.
- Orissa High Court (2020): The court acknowledged the complexities of implementing the right to be forgotten and called for a broader debate on practical and technological issues.
-Source: Indian Express
