On November 28, 2025, a Delhi court at Patiala House issued a “John Doe” order, directing Indian Kanoon, prominent media organizations, and Google LLC to remove or de-index online content and URLs naming a man previously accused in the 2019 Moser Baer money-laundering case, who was fully exonerated on merits in 2024. Relying on the constitutional right to dignity and privacy, the court held that digital records of his past accusations served no legitimate interest and caused ongoing reputational harm after his acquittal.
This ruling marks a significant step in the evolution of Indian jurisprudence on the “right to be forgotten” as well as the broader “right to erasure”. These are two overlapping yet distinct privacy rights that regulate the lifespan, visibility, and accessibility of personal information in the digital ecosystem. The ruling also invites a comparative review of the frameworks under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (the DPDP Act) and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), both of which have shaped global understanding of informational autonomy.
1. Background: The Delhi Court’s 2025 order
Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna stated that:
“The information serves no purpose other than that it is detrimental to the plaintiff’s reputation. In my opinion, no public interest is served by keeping online information about an individual after criminal proceedings have come to an end and the individual has been cleared of guilt”
The court ordered removal/de-indexing of URLs by Google linking the plaintiff to the 2019 Moser Baer money-laundering probe, removal of articles by media houses, blocking of access to content referring to the plaintiff’s name in connection with the ED probe, and a restraint on further republication. The court concluded that continued availability of the articles undermined the man’s dignity, integrity, and peace of mind, which were protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Constitutional and Statutory Framework in India
A. Article 21 and Puttuswamy case (2017) - The Supreme Court in K.S Puttuswamy v Union of India (2017) recognized the right to privacy as part of the right to life and dignity, identifying a “right to control dissemination of personal information” and explicitly acknowledging the right to be forgotten. However, the court emphasized that this right is not absolute, requiring a careful balance with free speech (protected under Article 19(1)(a), judicial transparency, and legitimate public interest.
B. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 - The DPDP Act allows individuals under Section 12 and Section 6 to request correction, updating, or erasure of personal data when:
· Data is no longer necessary,
· Consent is withdrawn, or
· Retention is no longer legally mandated
The DPDP Act still preserves exceptions for compliance with law, court orders, and broader public interests. Therefore, although not expressly codifying the right to be forgotten, the Act strengthens data subjects’ claims for removal and de-indexing.
C. European Union’s GDPR - Article 17 of the EU GDPR provides a mature model, allowing individuals to require deletion to delinking where data is:
- No longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed.
- Personal data has been processed unlawfully.
- Data subjects withdraw consent, and there is no other legal ground for processing,
- Data subject objects to the processing and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing.
- Causes disproportionate harm.
Furthermore, In Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez (2014), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that Google, by indexing and displaying personal data in search results, functions as a data controller and is therefore responsible for complying with EU data protection law. The case arose after Mario Costeja, a Spanish citizen, sought the removal of links to a 1998 newspaper announcement about a debt recovery proceeding which was resolved, arguing that the information – though lawfully published at the time, had become irrelevant, outdated and harmful when prominently displayed in Google search results for their name. The CJEU ruled that individuals may ask search engines to de-index links containing personal information that is no longer relevant or necessary, even if the original content remains legitimately published. This landmark judgement effectively created the modern Right to be Forgotten, before it was codified in Article 17 of the GDPR.
D. Divergent High court holdingsU
a. Jorawar Singh Mundy v Union of India (2021)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief by directing Google and Indian Kanoon to de-index an acquittal judgement, holding that an individual’s right to privacy and dignity may outweigh continued public accessibility of judicial records when the information has become harmful and outdated.
b. Kerala High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9478 of 2016
The Kerala High Court ordered Indian Kanoon to delete the name of a rape victim from published judgements, recognizing the individual’s right to privacy and reputation – especially for sensitive cases, even though the term “right to be forgotten” was not explicitly used.
c. Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court rejected a plea to remove an acquittal judgement from online platforms, holding that publication on a website does not violate any legal right nor amount to unlawful reporting. It stressed that there was no statutory basis for ordering removal and prioritised the principal of open judicial records.
3. Our observations:
As seen above, various high courts across India have taken different stances on the right to be forgotten. However, the Delhi court’s 2025 order signals that Indian jurisprudence is moving towards a clearer approach: individuals who are fully exonerated should not remain indefinitely stained by digital information, especially when no public interest remains.
Combined with the DPDP Act’s erasure rights and the constitutional foundation under Article 19(1)(a) in Puttuswamy, Indian courts are aligning more closely with global principles. While caveats such as free speech and open justice remain, a practical consensus is emerging: digital permanence should not override human dignity, and courts will intervene when outdated allegations cause disproportionate harm to individuals.
Author: Mr. Nitin Thomas, Associate at NovoJuris Legal
