The Delhi High Court ordered masking personal identifiers in judicial records and de-indexing them from name-based searches. This pits an individual's "Right to Be Forgotten" directly against the principle of open justice and press freedom. Legal databases like Indian Kanoon are challenging the ruling, arguing for accessible public records.
How We Got Here
The Delhi High Court's ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India established a framework for the "Right to Be Forgotten" in India. This framework, which leverages aspects of Article 21 and the upcoming DPDP Act 2023, faces an appeal from Indian Kanoon to the Division Bench.
The Numbers
- The Delhi HC framework mandates masking personal identifiers in court orders and restricts name-based discoverability across legal databases.
- It also directs search engines to de-index masked judicial records from name-based search results.
- Section 17(1)(b) of the DPDP Act 2023 exempts courts from the Act's standard "consent-centric" data processing rules.
- Indian Kanoon appealed the Single Bench's directions to the Delhi High Court's Division Bench, challenging their operational implementation.
- The Supreme Court is also reviewing RTBF in the Indian Express vs. Nitin Bhatnagar petition, indicating a broader legal test.
What Happens Next
🇮🇳 Why This Matters for India
For legal tech founders in Bengaluru building AI/ML tools on public data, this ruling could complicate data sourcing and model training significantly.
The Take
The drive for individual privacy, while well-intentioned, ignores the downstream impact on open data principles critical for legal research and future AI models. Expect more legal tech startups to face data access hurdles unless the SC clarifies these boundaries.
Source:
MediaNama ↗