Observing that society has entered a “new age,” the Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine whether individuals who have been discharged or acquitted in criminal cases can seek deletion of earlier online news reports about those cases.
The issue places two constitutional guarantees in tension: freedom of expression under Article 19 and the rights to dignity, privacy, and the so-called right to be forgotten under Article 21.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice in a petition filed by a media organisation challenging a December 18, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court.
That order had upheld an injunction from a trial court directing restraint on circulation and publication of news concerning an accused who was later discharged.
While clarifying that the High Court’s ruling will not be treated as precedent, the apex court declined to stay the defamation proceedings and sought responses from the concerned individual and several media houses by March 16.
Media’s argument: history cannot be erased
Appearing for the publisher, senior advocate Arvind Datar argued that extending the right to be forgotten to factual news reporting would undermine press freedom.
“The news will prevail. It cannot be erased,” he submitted.
Datar relied on the 2017 privacy ruling in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right but also cautioned that it does not include a right to wipe out history.
He maintained that truthful reports based on public records do not become defamatory merely because a person is later discharged.
The bench posed a hypothetical: what if media houses repeatedly publish the same report -- whose right would prevail then, Article 19(1)(a) or Article 21? Datar responded that even printed newspapers remain part of the public record and that, in case of conflict, the “right to know will prevail.”
Justice Nagarathna remarked, “This is a new age. Now, people will like to be forgotten in the age of social media. There are several defamatory contents being made online. Interesting issue. We will look into it.”
Justice Bhuyan expressed concern that privacy claims could be misused: “Nowadays a wall of privacy is being created to deny citizens information. It is not good for democracy.”
How the dispute arose
The case stems from a defamation suit by an individual who had been arrested and investigated in a bank fraud matter involving a corporate group but was later discharged.
He sought removal of several online articles published between 2020 and 2024 that reported his arrest, questioning by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and subsequent court proceedings.
The articles -- carried by the digital platform of Indian Express -- were based on official press releases and court records. One story even covered a High Court order that discharged him and criticised the agency’s investigation.
The principal district court granted an interim injunction directing removal of multiple URLs. The High Court upheld that order, leading to the present challenge before the Supreme Court.
Datar also pointed out that defamation suits must ordinarily be filed within one year of publication, arguing that the claim itself was time-barred.
Archives, intermediaries, and judicial records
Another petitioner, Indian Kanoon, which hosts court orders and judgments, supported the challenge. Its counsel warned that directions to remove judicial records themselves would have “serious implications” for open justice and legal research.
Datar informed the court that, although his client had complied with the High Court’s direction and taken down the specific article, online reports eventually move into archives.
Removing a person’s name, he said, often means distorting or dismantling the entire factual narrative.
He cautioned that if the High Court’s approach stands, anyone named in a news report could later seek erasure, chilling investigative journalism and public-interest reporting.
What is the right to be forgotten?
Broadly, the right to be forgotten allows individuals to request deletion or de-indexing of personal data that is outdated, irrelevant, or excessive.
Internationally, the concept gained prominence after a 2014 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) in the “Google Spain” case and is codified in Article 17 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.
In India, there is no standalone statute on the subject. The Puttaswamy judgment acknowledged the idea in principle but stressed that it is not absolute and must yield to considerations such as public interest, archiving, research, and legal claims.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 recognises a right to “erasure,” though its application to court records and journalistic content remains unsettled.
Divergent High Court views
Indian courts have taken varying approaches:
A question with wide ramifications
The Supreme Court has earlier cautioned that removing judgments from the public domain after acquittal could have “very serious ramifications.”
Now, by taking up this matter, it will attempt to define the contours of the right to be forgotten and determine how, and if at all, it can coexist with press freedom and the principle of open justice.
As Datar told the bench, “This may be a landmark ruling.”
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
Find the best of Al News in one place, specially curated for you every weekend.
Stay on top of the latest tech trends and biggest startup news.
