A Delhi court at Patiala House has ordered media houses, Google, and India Kanoon to remove or de-index content individual’s name to the 2019 Moser Baer money laundering probe after his full exoneration in 2024.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna ruled that such persistent online links undermine his right to dignity under Article 21, serving no public interest post-clearance by the Enforcement Directorate. This interim order blocks specified URLs pending the main suit, spotlighting tensions between privacy and information access for courts, media, and tech firms.
Judicial Rationale and Key Quotes
Judge Chandna emphasised, “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 individual has been cleared of guilt.”
Bhatnagar, arrested in 2023 amid the probe, highlighted reputational harm to his career and social ties from enduring articles. The court noted a prima facie case, favouring balance of convenience and preventing irreparable damage, thus restraining further publication.
Right to be Forgotten
The right to be forgotten empowers individuals to request erasure of personal data from online platforms when it becomes irrelevant, inaccurate, or harmful, forming part of privacy protections under Article 21 of India’s Constitution. Courts recognise it as non-absolute, balancing against public interest, free speech, and archival needs, allowing removal post-acquittal but not for ongoing probes or judgments.
This judicially evolved concept, absent statutory codification, addresses digital permanence harming dignity despite legal clearance.
Case Origins and Broader Precedents
The directive traces to a 2019 Enforcement Directorate investigation into Moser Baer India’s alleged money laundering, where Bhatnagar was named but discharged on merits in 2024 with no charges lingering.
It echoes the Supreme Court’s 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy verdict, embedding the right to be forgotten within privacy and dignity rights, though not absolute, exceptions apply for public interest or archives. Recent Delhi High Court observations reinforce this, stressing no value in digital hauntings post-acquittal, amid evolving debates on data protection under the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
Contrasting High Court Rulings
High courts across India have issued divergent rulings on the right to be forgotten, reflecting ongoing judicial tensions. Gujarat High Court in Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave rejected erasure of acquittal details from public records, prioritising open justice over personal privacy.
Karnataka High Court in V v. High Court protected a daughter’s name by redacting it from judgments to prevent reputational harm. Delhi High Court in Jorawar Singh Mundy and SK v. Union of India directed search engines to delink post-acquittal content, while Madras High Court barred it for court judgments, deeming open justice paramount. Kerala High Court in Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India similarly favoured public interest, declining to override legislative bounds.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This ruling champions empathy by erasing digital shadows on the innocent, nurturing harmony and second chances in a wired world. It calls on media and platforms to prioritise human dignity over perpetual records, fostering kinder online norms without stifling accountability.
