COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL ON LEGAL RIGHTS OF ONLINE LEGAL DIRECTORIES
Delhi High Court Weighs Right to be Forgotten Against Indian Kanoon’s Role in Publishing Court Judgments
Online legal directories argue transparency and public access to judgments is vital for democracy
Courts balance privacy, dignity, and freedom of expression in digital age
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: December 22, 2025:
The Delhi High Court is currently examining a significant case involving Indian Kanoon, a popular online legal search engine. The platform has challenged a trial court order directing it to remove articles and URLs related to a man accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), who was later acquitted. The order was based on the individual’s claim to the “right to be forgotten.”
Also Read: Falcon Scam: ED Traces Global Money Trail, Legal Fallout Looms Large
This case highlights the growing tension between digital privacy rights and the freedom of online directories to publish and archive judicial records.
Background of the Case
- Indian Kanoon was asked to remove articles and links about a PMLA accused after his exoneration.
- The accused argued that continued online availability of his case details harmed his reputation and violated his right to dignity.
- Indian Kanoon, represented by advocates Apar Gupta and Naman Kumar, argued that publishing judgments is part of its advocacy and business, protected under constitutional rights of free speech and access to information.
Key Laws Governing Online Legal Directories
1. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
- Protects the right to publish and disseminate information, including judicial records.
- Online directories argue that judgments are public documents and fall under freedom of expression.
2. Article 21 – Right to Privacy and Dignity
- Recognised by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
- Forms the basis of the “right to be forgotten,” allowing individuals to request removal of outdated or harmful personal information.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 79 provides “safe harbour” to intermediaries like Indian Kanoon, shielding them from liability if they act as neutral platforms.
- However, courts can direct removal of content if it violates privacy or dignity.
4. Data Protection Bill (pending)
- Proposes codification of the “right to be forgotten.”
- Would require platforms to balance privacy with public interest in transparency.
Also Read: Online Dispute Resolution Clauses Gain Legal Recognition in India
Landmark Judgments Shaping the Debate
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
- Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Laid foundation for the “right to be forgotten.”
Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha (2020, Orissa HC)
- Court acknowledged the right to be forgotten in cases involving sensitive personal information.
X v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2021)
- Delhi High Court recognised that acquitted individuals may seek removal of case details to protect dignity.
Delhi HC Right to be Forgotten Rulings (2025)
- Recent judgments held that right to dignity can override press freedom after acquittal.
- Courts emphasised that continued circulation of arrest-related news causes disproportionate harm.
Indian Kanoon’s Advocacy
Indian Kanoon argues that:
- Court judgments are public records and essential for transparency.
- Removing judgments undermines legal research, accountability, and public trust.
- Its business model depends on providing free access to judicial data, which supports democracy and rule of law.
Advocates stress that while privacy is important, public interest in judicial transparency must prevail.
Challenges in Balancing Rights
- Privacy vs Transparency: Courts must decide whether individual dignity outweighs public access to judgments.
- Business vs Regulation: Platforms like Indian Kanoon rely on publishing judgments; restrictions could affect their viability.
- Global Context: The EU’s GDPR recognises the right to be forgotten but balances it with freedom of information. India is still evolving its framework.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Declares HIV Positive Persons as ‘Disabled’ Under RPwD Act
Expert Opinions
Legal scholars note that:
- Absolute removal of judgments could harm legal education and advocacy.
- A middle path may involve anonymisation of names while retaining judgments for research.
- Courts must ensure that privacy rights do not erode open justice principles.
Wider Implications
- Media Freedom: Similar orders have been passed against news outlets, raising concerns about censorship.
- Digital Archives: Libraries and directories may face increasing demands for removal.
- Future Legislation: The pending Data Protection Bill will likely provide clearer rules.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Indian Kanoon’s case will shape the future of digital legal archives in India. It will determine how platforms balance privacy rights with their business of providing public access to judgments.
This ruling could set a precedent for online directories, media houses, and digital libraries, defining the contours of the right to be forgotten in India’s legal system.
GEO Keywords for Faster Searches
- Delhi High Court Indian Kanoon right to be forgotten
- Indian Kanoon PMLA accused judgment removal
- Online legal directories publishing court judgments India
- Right to be forgotten vs freedom of expression India
- Delhi HC privacy dignity vs press freedom
- Indian Kanoon Supreme Court privacy case
- Court judgments online archives India
- Legal search engine Indian Kanoon case Delhi HC
- Right to be forgotten Indian law 2025
- Indian Kanoon advocacy freedom of speech
Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses to Quash FIR Over Tweet Against PM Modi