Right to Be Forgotten in India: Can You Remove Old Court Cases and News From Google?

Introduction

A criminal case may end in acquittal.

An FIR may be quashed.

A matrimonial dispute may be settled.

A person may be discharged from prosecution.

Yet years later, typing that person’s name into Google may still produce:

• old court judgments;
• FIR-related news reports;
• arrest stories;
• legal database entries;
• allegations that were never proved;
• or intimate details from a private dispute.

For the individual concerned, the legal proceedings may be over.

For the internet, however, the case may never have ended.

This creates one of the most difficult questions in modern privacy law:

Can a person ask Google, legal databases, news websites or courts to remove old information about them from the internet?

Indian courts increasingly recognise what is commonly called the “right to be forgotten”, particularly as an aspect of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

But it is not an absolute right to erase history.

Courts must balance privacy against competing interests such as:

• open justice;
• freedom of speech;
• freedom of the press;
• public access to court records;
• legitimate public interest;
• commercial due diligence;
• and the historical integrity of judicial proceedings.

The legal position changed significantly in May 2026, when the Delhi High Court delivered an extensive judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., dealing with more than 40 petitions involving acquittals, discharged accused persons, quashed criminal cases, matrimonial disputes, private civil disputes and other personal information.

The Court recognised that in appropriate cases a person may obtain de-indexing of name-based search results without requiring the underlying judicial record itself to be destroyed.

At the same time, courts have refused relief where continuing public interest outweighs individual privacy.

The issue becomes even more complicated when the material sought to be removed is not a court judgment but a news report.

The Supreme Court is presently examining that question in proceedings concerning whether the right to be forgotten can require old news articles to be removed or de-indexed after a person has been discharged from a criminal case. In February 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court direction requiring certain news reports to be removed and clarified that the High Court order would not operate as a precedent while the issue is examined.

The result is a developing but increasingly important area of Indian privacy law.

What Is the Right to Be Forgotten?

The “right to be forgotten” broadly refers to a person’s ability, in appropriate circumstances, to seek removal, masking, anonymisation or reduced accessibility of personal information that remains permanently available online.

The concept is closely connected with:

• privacy;
• dignity;
• reputation;
• informational self-determination;
• rehabilitation;
• and the ability to move on from outdated events.

It does not necessarily mean destroying historical records.

Instead, the remedy may involve reducing the ease with which a person’s name remains permanently associated with old information.

For example, a judgment may remain available by:

• case number;
• citation;
• date;
• court;
• or subject matter,

while no longer appearing when someone searches the individual’s name on Google.

This distinction between accessibility and erasure has become central to Indian law.

Constitutional Basis: Article 21 and Privacy

The constitutional foundation comes primarily from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right.

Privacy includes several dimensions, including control over personal information.

Later courts have treated the right to be forgotten as closely connected with this concept of informational privacy.

But privacy is not absolute.

It must sometimes be balanced against other constitutional values, particularly:

• Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression;
• freedom of the press;
• open judicial proceedings;
• and legitimate public interest.

The Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment emphasised that these competing rights must be balanced case by case rather than by applying a universal rule.

Is There a Specific “Right to Be Forgotten Act” in India?

No.

India does not currently have a standalone statute called the Right to Be Forgotten Act.

The right has developed principally through:

• Article 21 privacy jurisprudence;
• High Court decisions;
• data-protection principles;
• intermediary law;
• court rules concerning anonymity;
• and case-specific judicial orders.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 also contains a right to correction and erasure of personal data under Section 12, but an important timing issue must be understood.

The Central Government notified the commencement schedule for the DPDP Act in November 2025. Sections 11 to 17—including Section 12—are scheduled to come into force 18 months after publication of the commencement notification, rather than immediately.

Accordingly, as of September 2026, Section 12’s full statutory erasure right has not yet commenced.

This is an important distinction because many discussions incorrectly assume that Section 12 is already fully enforceable.

What Will Section 12 DPDP Act Provide?

Once operative, Section 12 gives a Data Principal rights relating to:

• correction;
• completion;
• updating;
• and erasure

of personal data in circumstances covered by the Act.

But even after commencement, the DPDP Act will not necessarily create an unrestricted right to delete all court judgments or historical news reports.

Data may need to be retained where necessary for:

• compliance with law;
• legal claims;
• statutory obligations;
• judicial functions;
• or other permitted purposes.

The relationship between data-protection erasure rights and public judicial records will therefore continue to require careful legal interpretation.

Three Different Remedies: Deletion, Masking and De-Indexing

These concepts are often confused.

Deletion

The source material itself is removed.

For example:

• a news article is deleted from a publisher’s website; or
• an online document is taken down entirely.

This is the strongest remedy.

Masking or anonymisation

The document remains online, but identifying information is replaced.

For example:

Rahul Sharma v. State

may become:

X v. State

or:

ABC v. State.

De-indexing

The underlying page remains online, but search engines stop displaying it when someone searches for a person’s name.

The judgment may still be found using:

• case number;
• citation;
• date;
• court name;
• legal issue.

De-indexing is therefore less drastic than deletion.

This distinction was central to the Delhi High Court’s 2026 framework.

Why De-Indexing Can Be a Middle Ground

Suppose a person was acquitted ten years ago.

The judgment may still have genuine legal value.

Lawyers, judges and researchers may need it for precedent.

Destroying the judgment could undermine open justice.

But allowing the person’s name to remain the first Google result indefinitely can impose continuing reputational consequences despite the acquittal.

De-indexing attempts to balance those interests.

The legal record remains intact.

But the individual is no longer permanently defined by the case every time their name is searched.

Delhi High Court’s Landmark 2026 Decision

On 29 May 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered its extensive judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. and Connected Matters.

The case involved numerous petitions raising different forms of right-to-be-forgotten claims.

The Court dealt with cases involving:

• acquittal;
• discharge;
• quashing of FIRs;
• settlement;
• matrimonial disputes;
• private family disputes;
• sexual-offence allegations;
• incidental references to persons;
• and other private information.

Rather than adopting a blanket rule, the Court examined the nature of each case.

What Relief Did the Delhi High Court Grant?

In numerous cases, the Court directed:

• Google and other search engines to de-index relevant material from name-based searches;
• legal databases to disable name-based search functionality;
• while allowing the relevant judgments to remain accessible through other legal identifiers.

For example, the Court directed de-indexing where petitioners had been:

• acquitted;
• discharged;
• exonerated through closure reports;
• or involved in proceedings later quashed.

The judgment represents one of the most detailed Indian attempts to create a practical right-to-be-forgotten framework.

Acquittal Is a Strong Factor

The Delhi High Court gave particular weight to acquittal.

In cases involving acquittal from serious sexual-offence allegations, the Court recognised that mere acquittal may not remove the lasting social stigma created by easy internet searchability.

It stated that where:

• a private individual has been acquitted of sexual-offence charges; and
• no specific continuing public interest justifies identification,

the case for masking and de-indexing may follow strongly from the acquittal itself.

This does not mean every acquitted person automatically receives de-indexing.

But acquittal is a highly relevant factor.

Discharge Can Also Support Relief

A person may be discharged before trial because the court finds insufficient basis to continue criminal proceedings.

The Delhi High Court held in one of the connected matters that the legal consequence of discharge should have practical effect in the digital environment as well.

It therefore directed name-based de-indexing of judgments, orders and related news articles.

What About FIRs That Were Quashed?

Quashing can also strongly support relief.

Where criminal proceedings have been quashed—particularly following settlement in a private dispute—the continuing association of a person’s name with allegations may no longer serve the same public purpose.

In several petitions, the Delhi High Court directed de-indexing after proceedings had been quashed.

The Bombay High Court adopted a similar approach in ABC v. State of Maharashtra in July 2026.

The Nagpur Bench directed that the petitioner’s identity be masked from online judicial records where an FIR had been quashed years earlier.

The Court emphasised the need to balance public access with the individual’s privacy and observed that the petitioner was not seeking destruction of the judicial record itself.

Matrimonial Cases Receive Strong Privacy Protection

Matrimonial disputes often contain highly personal information relating to:

• marriage;
• sexual relationships;
• allegations between spouses;
• children;
• finances;
• medical matters;
• property;
• and family conflicts.

The Delhi High Court in 2026 recognised that matrimonial disputes lie close to the core of protected privacy.

In several cases involving matrimonial proceedings that had concluded or been settled, it granted de-indexing relief because the continuing name-based searchability served little or no public interest.

The Court also held that merely because one spouse may be a public figure does not automatically turn intimate details of a private marriage into matters of public interest.

Private Civil and Family Disputes

The 2026 Delhi High Court framework also extended beyond criminal cases.

For example, it considered old private civil disputes involving family relationships.

Where the dispute was:

• purely personal;
• old;
• between private individuals;
• and lacking any meaningful continuing public interest,

the Court considered de-indexing appropriate.

This demonstrates that the right to be forgotten is not restricted only to people once accused of crimes.

What About Someone Who Was Only Incidentally Named?

Suppose a person’s name appears in a judgment even though:

• they were not accused;
• they were not a party;
• they were only incidentally referred to.

The continuing name-based appearance of that judgment may create serious reputational consequences without serving open-justice interests.

The Delhi High Court granted relief in cases where individuals had little or no substantive involvement in the underlying criminal proceedings.

This category can present a particularly strong privacy claim.

Is Relief Automatic After an FIR Is Quashed?

No.

A July 2026 Delhi High Court decision demonstrates the limits.

In M/s R.S.S. Estate LLP & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., the Court refused to mask the names of a real-estate firm and its promoters even though the relevant FIR had been quashed following settlement.

The Court considered the interests of prospective investors and stakeholders and held that they could have a legitimate interest in knowing the antecedents of persons with whom they proposed to conduct business.

This is crucial.

A quashed case does not automatically create a right to disappear from the internet.

Public Interest Can Defeat the Right to Be Forgotten

Courts may refuse relief where there is a strong continuing public interest.

Relevant situations may include:

• public officials;
• serious public wrongdoing;
• professional misconduct;
• matters affecting investors;
• conduct connected with public functions;
• large-scale financial wrongdoing;
• issues of public safety;
• or historically significant litigation.

The right to privacy must be balanced against the public’s legitimate right to know.

The Delhi High Court expressly distinguished between information that is merely interesting to the public and information that genuinely serves the public interest.

Public Figures Receive Less Automatic Protection

Being a public figure does not eliminate privacy.

But public status can affect the balancing exercise.

A politician, senior public official, major businessperson or other person holding a position of public responsibility may face a stronger argument that historical information relating to their public conduct should remain searchable.

However, public status does not necessarily justify disclosure of every private fact.

For example, intimate matrimonial information may remain private even where one spouse is publicly known.

The Delhi High Court specifically recognised this distinction in 2026.

What About Convictions?

A person who was convicted faces a more difficult right-to-be-forgotten claim than someone who was acquitted.

A conviction is a judicial finding of guilt.

Public interest in maintaining access may therefore be stronger.

That does not mean privacy can never arise—for example, juvenile justice law specifically values rehabilitation and fresh starts—but ordinary adult convictions present substantially different considerations from cases ending in acquittal or discharge.

Victims of Sexual Offences

The law already gives strong anonymity protection to victims of sexual offences.

Their identities generally should not be published in violation of statutory protections.

Where judicial databases or search results disclose protected identities, removal or masking may be justified independently of the general right-to-be-forgotten framework.

The Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment also addressed the need for legal databases to prevent future disclosure of protected victim identities.

Can You Remove a Court Judgment From Google?

Potentially, yes—but usually the legally appropriate remedy may be de-indexing, not deleting the judgment itself.

If a court grants relief, Google may be directed not to show the page in searches for your name.

But the judgment may remain available through:

• citation;
• case number;
• date;
• court;
• legal database research.

This preserves judicial transparency while reducing the reputational consequences of name-based indexing.

Can You Force Google to Delete the Original Judgment?

Google usually does not host the underlying court judgment.

It indexes webpages hosted by:

• court websites;
• Indian Kanoon;
• SCC Online;
• other legal databases;
• news publishers;
• government websites.

Therefore, asking Google to “delete the case” may misunderstand the technical problem.

There are usually at least two different targets:

Source

The website actually publishing the judgment.

Search engine

Google or another search engine making the source easy to find.

A court may deal with them differently.

Masking at Source vs De-Indexing From Google

Suppose the Bombay High Court’s website contains:

Rahul Verma v. State of Maharashtra

Google indexes that page.

Two remedies are possible.

Mask the source

The court changes the online judgment to:

R.V. v. State of Maharashtra

De-index the result

Google stops displaying the page when someone searches:

Rahul Verma.

Using both can provide stronger privacy protection.

What About Indian Kanoon and Other Legal Databases?

Legal databases play an important role in open access to law.

But name-based indexing also creates privacy concerns.

The Delhi High Court’s May 2026 decision attempted a compromise.

Where relief was granted, it directed legal databases such as Indian Kanoon to restrict name-based search, while keeping the legal decision accessible through alternative search parameters.

This is a significant model because it preserves the judgment for legal research without making a person’s name permanently searchable.

Can You Remove Old News Articles?

This is more legally difficult than masking many court records.

A news report engages:

• press freedom;
• Article 19(1)(a);
• public interest;
• historical record;
• editorial independence;
• and the public’s right to receive information.

A truthful news report was not necessarily unlawful merely because the person was later acquitted or discharged.

For example:

“Businessman arrested by ED on Monday”

may have been entirely accurate when published.

The fact that he was later discharged does not retroactively make the original reporting false.

The difficult question is whether the continued accessibility of that report years later creates a disproportionate privacy burden.

Supreme Court Is Examining the News-Deletion Question

This issue is presently before the Supreme Court.

In February 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice in a case involving old news reports concerning a banker who had been discharged in a money-laundering matter.

The publisher challenged a Delhi High Court direction requiring removal and de-indexing of the reports.

The Supreme Court stayed the High Court ruling and clarified that it would not operate as a precedent while the larger issue is considered.

Therefore, as of September 2026:

there is no safe nationwide rule that every person acquitted or discharged can require newspapers to delete accurate historical reporting.

The issue remains under Supreme Court consideration.

Could De-Indexing News Be Easier Than Deleting It?

Potentially.

Deletion completely removes the publisher’s historical record.

De-indexing preserves the article but makes it less prominent in name-based search.

This may sometimes offer a more proportionate balance between:

• press freedom;
• historical accuracy;
• and personal rehabilitation.

The Delhi High Court’s May 2026 judgment granted name-based de-indexing in several matters involving old news articles, but the Supreme Court’s pending consideration of news-related right-to-be-forgotten claims means this area should still be treated as unsettled.

Can You Ask a News Website to Update the Article Instead?

Yes, and sometimes this may be a more practical remedy.

Suppose the original headline says:

“Doctor Arrested for Fraud.”

The doctor is later acquitted.

Rather than deleting the original article, the publisher may:

• add an update;
• add an editor’s note;
• link the acquittal;
• correct the headline;
• or publish a follow-up article.

This can reduce misleading impressions while preserving the historical record.

Courts may consider whether such less restrictive alternatives adequately protect reputation and privacy.

Accurate Historical Reporting vs Misleading Present-Day Impression

This distinction is extremely important.

A news article may have been accurate in 2018:

“A has been arrested.”

But a Google search in 2026 may show only:

“A arrested for cheating”

without showing that:

• charges were dropped;
• the FIR was quashed;
• or A was acquitted.

The problem may therefore not be the original historical accuracy.

The problem may be the continuing digital prominence of incomplete information.

The Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment expressly considered situations where old reports remained searchable without reflecting later outcomes favourable to the individual.

Does Acquittal Mean the Original News Was Defamatory?

No.

An acquittal does not automatically make earlier accurate reports defamatory.

If a newspaper truthfully reported:

“Police registered an FIR against X”

at a time when an FIR had actually been registered, that statement may have been factually accurate.

Defamation and the right to be forgotten are different legal concepts.

The latter focuses more on whether continued prominence of old information is now disproportionately harmful to privacy and dignity.

Can You Sue Google Directly?

Possible remedies depend on circumstances.

Google is generally an intermediary/search engine rather than the creator of the underlying court record or news article.

A person may:

• use Google’s available removal mechanisms;
• contact the source publisher;
• obtain a judicial order;
• or initiate proceedings where necessary.

Where courts grant de-indexing, directions may be issued specifically to search-engine operators.

The Delhi High Court did so in its May 2026 framework.

Does Google Have Its Own Removal Process?

Google offers processes through which users can request removal of certain personal information from search results.

But Google’s internal policies are not identical to Indian constitutional law.

A request may be accepted for some categories of:

• sensitive personal information;
• doxxing;
• explicit imagery;
• outdated cache material;
• or other qualifying content.

A refusal under Google’s private policy does not necessarily prevent a person from seeking relief from an Indian court.

Similarly, approval of a Google request does not erase the underlying source.

What Court Should You Approach?

The appropriate forum depends on what is being challenged.

Possible remedies may involve:

• the High Court under Article 226;
• the court that originally issued the judgment;
• a civil court;
• statutory grievance mechanisms;
• or another competent forum.

For judicial records, courts increasingly favour approaching the judicial authority responsible for the original record where masking is sought.

The Delhi High Court in 2026 allowed affected petitioners to approach the relevant original court for masking even where search-engine de-indexing was separately directed.

What Should a Petition Ask For?

A carefully framed petition should distinguish between different remedies.

Instead of simply asking:

“Delete everything about me from the internet”

the petitioner might seek:

• masking of name and personal identifiers from the online court copy;
• de-indexing from name-based Google searches;
• disabling name-based search on legal databases;
• removal of highly sensitive personal details;
• updating old news reports;
• or, in exceptional cases, deletion of particular material.

Narrowly tailored relief may be more constitutionally defensible than total erasure.

What Factors Will a Court Consider?

Based on emerging Indian jurisprudence, relevant factors can include:

Outcome of the case

Was the person:

• convicted;
• acquitted;
• discharged;
• never prosecuted;
• cleared through a closure report;
• or subject to proceedings later quashed?

Nature of the allegations

Were the allegations:

• extremely serious;
• sexual;
• financial;
• regulatory;
• matrimonial;
• professional;
• or purely private?

Public or private status

Is the petitioner:

• a private person;
• politician;
• public official;
• business promoter;
• regulated professional;
• or public figure?

Passage of time

Has the information remained online for:

• months;
• years;
• decades?

Continuing public interest

Would the public legitimately benefit from continued name-based access?

Harm

Is the information causing:

• employment loss;
• stigma;
• harassment;
• threats;
• family harm;
• or continuing reputational prejudice?

Accuracy

Is the information:

• accurate;
• outdated;
• incomplete;
• misleading;
• or false?

Nature of the record

Is it:

• a court judgment;
• FIR report;
• news article;
• private photograph;
• social-media post;
• matrimonial record?

Alternative remedies

Could privacy be protected through:

• masking;
• de-indexing;
• updating;
• partial redaction;

instead of complete deletion?

The 2026 Delhi High Court framework reflects this kind of fact-sensitive balancing.

When Is Relief Most Likely?

While no result is guaranteed, a stronger claim may exist where:

• the petitioner is a private individual;
• they were acquitted or discharged;
• the FIR was quashed;
• the allegations were never established;
• the dispute was purely matrimonial or private;
• significant time has passed;
• continued searchability causes documented harm;
• no meaningful public interest remains;
• and the relief sought is limited to de-indexing or masking.

When Is Relief Less Likely?

Relief may be harder where:

• there is a conviction;
• the petitioner is a public official;
• the information concerns public duties;
• serious regulatory misconduct is involved;
• investor protection requires transparency;
• the person’s past conduct remains commercially relevant;
• the material relates to continuing public controversy;
• or the information has substantial historical significance.

The July 2026 real-estate case illustrates that even a quashed FIR may remain searchable where investor interests justify transparency.

Employment Background Checks

One practical reason right-to-be-forgotten litigation is increasing is employment screening.

A person may be legally acquitted yet repeatedly rejected because a search engine continues to show:

“Arrested in criminal case.”

Employers may not investigate far enough to discover:

“Acquitted five years later.”

This can turn an old accusation into a continuing informal punishment.

Courts granting de-indexing have increasingly considered:

• career consequences;
• rehabilitation;
• reputation;
• and disproportionate prejudice.

University Admissions and Visa Applications

Similar issues can arise where online search results affect:

• admission;
• scholarships;
• immigration;
• professional licensing;
• housing;
• and international travel.

However, right-to-be-forgotten relief does not normally authorise a person to give a false answer to an official question concerning prior proceedings where disclosure is legally required.

Making information harder to find online is not the same as rewriting legal history.

Can You Say “I Was Never Arrested” After De-Indexing?

No, if you were actually arrested.

The right to be forgotten does not create a right to lie.

If an official form lawfully asks:

“Have you ever been arrested?”

you must answer according to the applicable legal requirements.

De-indexing concerns public internet accessibility, not the truth of historical events.

Does a Quashed FIR Disappear From Police Records?

Not necessarily.

Quashing criminal proceedings and removing name-based Google search results are separate issues.

Police and government systems may continue to maintain lawful official records according to applicable retention requirements.

The right to be forgotten is therefore generally not a right to erase every government record.

What About Juvenile Records?

Juvenile justice law has particularly strong rehabilitation principles.

The philosophy of giving children a fresh start can support stronger restrictions on continued publication or reliance on juvenile criminal history, subject to statutory rules.

Courts have invoked right-to-be-forgotten concepts in this rehabilitation context as well.

Is There a Right to Remove Bankruptcy or Financial Default History?

Not automatically.

Information concerning:

• insolvency;
• company directorship;
• regulatory sanctions;
• fraud findings;
• securities misconduct;
• or business defaults

may have legitimate public or commercial relevance.

For example, investors may have a strong interest in the financial history of company promoters.

The privacy/public-interest balance therefore differs sharply from a purely private matrimonial dispute.

Social Media Posts

A right-to-be-forgotten claim can also involve material originally posted on:

• Facebook;
• Instagram;
• X;
• YouTube;
• Reddit;
• forums;
• blogs.

If the content was originally uploaded by the person themselves, platform deletion tools may provide the simplest solution.

Problems arise when copies remain elsewhere or are indexed by search engines.

If the content is defamatory, intimate or unlawfully published, additional legal remedies may apply independently of the right to be forgotten.

Intimate Images and Revenge Porn

Cases involving non-consensual intimate images are legally much stronger than ordinary old-news disputes.

Such cases may involve:

• privacy;
• sexual offences;
• IT law;
• intermediary takedown duties;
• criminal remedies;
• and constitutional protections.

A victim does not necessarily need to rely solely on the general right-to-be-forgotten doctrine.

More specific legal protections may apply.

Right to Be Forgotten vs Right to Erasure

These expressions overlap but are not identical.

Right to erasure

Usually refers to deletion of personal data from a data fiduciary’s systems where legal conditions are satisfied.

Right to be forgotten

Often concerns broader public accessibility, particularly:

• search engines;
• online archives;
• court databases;
• and historical material.

A person may achieve practical “forgetting” through de-indexing even though the original data is not erased.

DPDP Act and Court Records

The DPDP Act should not be interpreted as an automatic mechanism for deleting judgments.

The Act includes a variety of exemptions and recognises lawful processing connected with judicial and legal functions.

Moreover, as of September 2026, the provisions containing the general rights of Data Principals, including Section 12, are scheduled for later commencement.

Therefore, anyone seeking immediate removal of an old judgment should not simply send an email stating:

“Delete this under Section 12 DPDP Act.”

The present legal route may still require court-based privacy relief or other applicable mechanisms.

Right to Be Forgotten and Open Justice

Open justice is a foundational democratic principle.

Courts do not ordinarily conduct litigation in secrecy.

Public access to judgments helps:

• ensure judicial accountability;
• develop precedent;
• allow legal research;
• inform citizens;
• and prevent secret justice.

This is why courts are cautious about deleting judicial history.

De-indexing has emerged as an attractive middle solution precisely because it can preserve open justice while reducing unnecessary reputational harm.

Could Too Much De-Indexing Damage Legal Research?

Yes, and this concern is real.

Suppose every person mentioned negatively in a judgment could demand that their name disappear.

Researchers might struggle to:

• trace precedents;
• investigate repeat misconduct;
• assess business history;
• identify patterns;
• or understand litigation.

That is why the right cannot operate automatically.

The Delhi High Court’s emerging framework attempts to preserve legal records while limiting only name-based discoverability where justified.

What About Freedom of the Press?

News publishers have an independent constitutional interest.

A newspaper may argue:

• the report was true;
• it concerned a public event;
• historical archives should not be rewritten;
• press freedom protects lawful reporting;
• and public records should remain available.

The person seeking removal may argue:

• the story is now incomplete;
• charges ended in their favour;
• the article dominates search results;
• there is no continuing public interest;
• and continuing accessibility creates disproportionate harm.

The Supreme Court’s pending case is expected to help clarify this conflict.

Practical Example 1: Acquitted Private Individual

A private employee was accused of a sexual offence in 2017.

They were acquitted after trial.

In 2026, searching their name produces the arrest and trial as the first several results.

There is no identifiable continuing public interest.

This is the kind of situation in which the Delhi High Court’s 2026 reasoning suggests a strong argument for name-based de-indexing.

Practical Example 2: Matrimonial Settlement

A divorce judgment contains:

• intimate allegations;
• financial information;
• details about children;
• and medical information.

The dispute settled eight years ago.

Both parties are private individuals.

A request for masking and de-indexing may receive significant privacy weight because the dispute concerns personal family life.

Practical Example 3: Real-Estate Promoter

A real-estate promoter was involved in a criminal complaint that later ended through settlement.

The promoter seeks removal of all records.

Potential investors argue that the litigation history is relevant when deciding whether to invest.

The Delhi High Court has refused relief in comparable circumstances because commercial stakeholders may possess a continuing right to know relevant antecedents.

Practical Example 4: Old Newspaper Report

A banker was arrested in a financial investigation.

A newspaper accurately reported the arrest.

The banker was later discharged and seeks deletion of the articles.

This presents a harder constitutional conflict because the original reporting may have been accurate and involves press freedom.

The Supreme Court is currently examining this type of question.

Practical Example 5: Person Mistakenly Named

A person’s name appears in an online court order because of mistaken identity.

They had no involvement in the case.

There may be a very strong argument for correction, masking or de-indexing because open justice is not served by permanently linking an uninvolved person to criminal allegations.

What Should You Do Before Going to Court?

First, document the problem.

Search your name using:

• Google;
• Bing;
• legal databases;
• relevant news sites.

Preserve:

• screenshots;
• URLs;
• search results;
• dates;
• cached pages;
• and evidence of harm.

Then collect documents showing the final legal outcome:

• acquittal judgment;
• discharge order;
• quashing order;
• closure report;
• settlement order;
• correction order.

You may also preserve evidence showing:

• employment rejection;
• reputational harm;
• threats;
• harassment;
• professional prejudice.

Contact the Source

Where appropriate, first contact:

• the news publisher;
• legal database;
• website administrator;
• or platform.

Explain:

• the original proceeding;
• final outcome;
• why the information is outdated or disproportionately harmful;
• and what limited remedy you seek.

Requesting:

“Please update this article to state that I was acquitted”

may sometimes succeed even where full deletion would be refused.

Contact the Search Engine

You can also use the search engine’s removal or legal-request mechanism.

Provide:

• exact URLs;
• identity details;
• supporting court orders;
• and explanation of why continued indexing violates applicable rights.

Where voluntary requests fail, judicial relief may be necessary.

Seek Narrow Relief

A carefully tailored remedy is often stronger than demanding complete internet erasure.

Possible requests include:

• remove home address;
• mask the person’s name;
• remove children’s identities;
• prevent name-based search;
• retain access by citation;
• update outdated news reports;
• de-index only specified URLs.

The narrower the remedy, the easier it may be to balance against open justice and press freedom.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the right to be forgotten recognised in India?

Indian courts increasingly recognise it as an aspect of privacy and informational autonomy under Article 21, but its scope is not absolute and continues to develop.

Can I remove an old criminal case from Google after acquittal?

Potentially.

The Delhi High Court’s May 2026 judgment provides significant support for name-based de-indexing in appropriate acquittal cases, particularly involving private individuals where no continuing public interest exists.

Does the judgment itself get deleted?

Not necessarily.

The judgment may remain available through citation, case number or other legal search parameters while your name is de-indexed.

Can I remove a case after the FIR was quashed?

Potentially.

Courts have granted masking and de-indexing after quashing, especially in private disputes. But relief is not automatic.

Can I remove old matrimonial judgments?

Potentially.

Courts give substantial privacy weight to intimate matrimonial information, particularly where the matter has concluded and no continuing public interest exists.

Can I force a newspaper to delete an accurate old article?

The legal position remains unsettled.

The Supreme Court is presently examining the scope of the right to be forgotten in relation to old news reports after discharge from criminal proceedings.

Can Google remove the case even if the court website keeps it?

Yes, de-indexing can theoretically remove name-based search visibility while the source record remains online.

Does Section 12 of the DPDP Act give me an immediate right to erase the article?

Not yet as a fully operative statutory right.

Section 12 falls within the provisions scheduled to commence 18 months after the November 2025 commencement notification.

Does an acquittal automatically guarantee de-indexing?

No.

Public interest, the person’s status, nature of the case and other circumstances still matter.

Can a convicted person claim the right to be forgotten?

They can seek relief, but the case is generally more difficult because the conviction itself may create a stronger continuing public interest.

Can a public figure use the right to be forgotten?

Potentially, but courts may place greater weight on public accountability where the material concerns the person’s public role.

Can a businessperson remove old litigation?

Sometimes, but courts may refuse where investors, consumers or commercial counterparties have a legitimate interest in knowing the person’s business history.

Practical Checklist

If an old judgment or news report is damaging your reputation online:

1. Search your full name and document all URLs.
2. Identify whether the source is a court, news publisher or legal database.
3. Obtain the final judgment or order showing the outcome.
4. Determine whether you seek deletion, masking or de-indexing.
5. Consider requesting an update rather than deletion of an accurate news report.
6. Contact the source website.
7. Submit a search-engine removal request.
8. Preserve evidence of reputational or professional harm.
9. Explain why no continuing public interest exists.
10. If necessary, seek relief before the appropriate court.
11. Ask for narrowly tailored relief.
12. Do not misrepresent or conceal facts when official disclosure is legally required.

The Most Important Distinction: Erasing History vs Ending Permanent Searchability

Much of the debate around the right to be forgotten becomes clearer once this distinction is understood.

The law does not necessarily need to choose between:

“Delete history completely.”

and

“Make every historical allegation permanently searchable by anyone forever.”

There is a middle ground.

A court judgment can continue to exist.

A journalist’s historical article can remain in an archive.

A legal researcher can still find the case.

But a private individual who has been acquitted may not necessarily have to spend the rest of their professional life with the allegation appearing whenever anyone searches their name.

This is the logic behind de-indexing.

The Internet Has Changed the Consequences of Court Records

Historically, an old judgment might have been stored in:

• a court file;
• law library;
• reporter;
• newspaper archive.

A person would need to actively search for it.

Today, Google can place that information before an employer within seconds.

Digital permanence has therefore changed the practical consequences of open records.

Information that once gradually faded from public attention can remain permanently prominent.

The right to be forgotten is an attempt to respond to that technological change without destroying legitimate history.

Conclusion

Can you remove an old court case or news report from Google in India?

Sometimes—but there is no automatic right to erase all negative information about yourself from the internet.

The strongest recent authority is the Delhi High Court’s 29 May 2026 judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., which created an extensive framework for dealing with right-to-be-forgotten claims.

The Court granted de-indexing in numerous cases involving:

• acquittal;
• discharge;
• quashed FIRs;
• private matrimonial disputes;
• closure reports;
• and cases lacking any meaningful continuing public interest.

Significantly, the Court did not require the legal record itself to disappear.

Instead, it frequently directed search engines and legal databases to disable name-based searchability, preserving the judgment for legal research through other identifiers.

The Bombay High Court adopted a similar privacy-protective approach in July 2026 when it ordered masking of the identity of an individual whose FIR had been quashed years earlier.

But the right has limits.

The Delhi High Court has also refused relief where a continuing public interest existed—for example, where prospective investors had a legitimate interest in the antecedents of real-estate promoters.

News reports present an even more difficult constitutional problem.

The Supreme Court is presently examining whether truthful historical news reports can be required to be removed or de-indexed after the subject has been discharged from criminal proceedings. In February 2026, the Court stayed a Delhi High Court removal order and made clear that the question remains open.

The DPDP Act will eventually add an important statutory right to correction and erasure under Section 12, but that provision is not yet in force as of September 2026; its commencement is scheduled under the Government’s phased implementation notification.

The emerging Indian position can therefore be summarised as follows:

The right to be forgotten is not a right to rewrite history.

It is a right, in appropriate circumstances, to prevent outdated, private or legally resolved information from remaining permanently and disproportionately attached to a person’s identity in the digital world.

The most effective remedy may therefore not be deletion.

It may be:

masking the name, removing personal identifiers, disabling name-based search, or de-indexing the result from Google while preserving the underlying judicial record.

That approach attempts to balance two equally important values:

society’s right to remember matters of legitimate public importance

and

an individual’s right not to be permanently punished by an internet search for allegations that the law itself has already put to rest.

This article reflects the legal position and publicly available judicial and regulatory developments up to September 2026. The Supreme Court is presently considering important questions concerning application of the right to be forgotten to online news archives, and the statutory erasure provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act are subject to phased commencement. The law in this area therefore continues to develop. This article is intended for general legal information and academic discussion and does not constitute legal advice.