The Supreme Court’s decision to stay a Delhi High Court order directing the removal of past news reports has reopened a fundamental constitutional debate: can the “right to be forgotten” be used to erase accurate journalism from the public record after an accused is discharged? The case has implications far beyond one dispute, touching the future of digital journalism, public memory, and the balance between privacy and free speech.
What triggered the Supreme Court’s intervention
The matter arose from a plea filed by challenging a December 2025 judgment of the . The High Court had upheld directions to remove and de-index several news reports after a banker was discharged in a money laundering case.
A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan stayed the High Court ruling, clarifying that it would not operate as a precedent. The Supreme Court’s notice has brought the issue squarely into focus at the national level.
The dispute behind the case
The banker had filed a defamation suit seeking deletion and de-indexing of three news reports published between 2020 and 2024, after he was discharged by a court in a money laundering investigation. The reports were based entirely on public records, including press releases of the and court proceedings.
One report included the banker’s own comments. Another covered ED raids and investigations across multiple states, mentioning his case as one among several. The third reported the court order discharging him. All reports were accurate at the time of publication, and subsequent developments were also reported through updates.
Lower courts and the turn to the RTBF
In November 2025, the Patiala House Court granted an interim injunction directing the removal of the URLs, reasoning that permanent digital availability could harm the plaintiff’s reputation despite his discharge. The Delhi High Court upheld this view, holding that the media’s freedom of expression is not absolute and is limited by an individual’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed that perpetual online access to such reports could cause enduring stigma, even if the accused was later exonerated. This reasoning effectively allowed the “right to be forgotten” to override continued access to factual reporting.
What is the “right to be forgotten”?
In Indian constitutional law, the right to be forgotten is understood as a facet of the right to privacy, which flows from Article 21. It allows individuals, in certain circumstances, to seek removal or de-indexing of personal data that is no longer relevant or necessary.
However, unlike in some European jurisdictions, India does not have a codified RTBF. Its contours are still evolving through judicial interpretation, especially when it comes into conflict with other fundamental rights.
Why the media has challenged the ruling
Challenging the Delhi High Court order, the petitioner argued that it sets a dangerous precedent. The concern is that any individual named in past reporting could invoke the RTBF after acquittal or discharge, regardless of whether the reporting was accurate or in public interest.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar submitted that truthful, factual reporting based on public records does not become defamatory merely because subsequent legal outcomes change. The plea argues that erasing such reports amounts to rewriting history and concealing matters of public record.
The constitutional clash at the heart of the case
At its core, the case pits two constitutional values against each other:
- The right to privacy, dignity, and reputation under Article 21
- The right to freedom of speech and expression, including press freedom, under Article 19(1)(a)
The petitioner contends that while RTBF may exist, it cannot be applied in a manner that creates a chilling effect on journalism or allows the erasure of truthful historical facts. Otherwise, media reporting on investigations and prosecutions would be constantly vulnerable to retrospective censorship.
Why this case matters beyond one individual
The Supreme Court’s final decision will shape how Indian law treats digital memory. In an era where online archives make journalism permanent, allowing routine deletion of accurate reports could undermine transparency and accountability.
At the same time, the court must grapple with genuine concerns about reputational harm in the digital age, where search engines can freeze an individual’s identity at the moment of accusation rather than acquittal.
What lies ahead
The case is now listed for further hearing on March 16. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling is expected to clarify:
- The scope and limits of the right to be forgotten in India
- Whether discharge or acquittal justifies erasing past reporting
- How courts should balance privacy against freedom of the press in the digital era
What to note for Prelims?
- Right to be forgotten is not codified in India; it flows from Article 21.
- Freedom of the press is protected under Article 19(1)(a).
- Courts often balance privacy against free speech on a case-by-case basis.
What to note for Mains?
- Critically examine the constitutional tension between RTBF and press freedom.
- Discuss the implications of digital permanence for reputation and accountability.
- Analyse whether truthful reporting can ever justify post-facto erasure.
- Evaluate how Indian courts should design safeguards against misuse of RTBF.
