The single bench judgment, delivered on 29 May, held that the right to be forgotten constitutes a protected aspect of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court laid down a framework requiring search engines and legal‑database platforms to de‑index and disable name‑based search functionality in respect of judgments, orders and news articles that form part of the petitions before it. The direction was intended to mask personal information that the court deemed no longer relevant or lacking a legitimate public purpose.

Indian Kanoon’s Grounds of Appeal

Indian Kanoon, represented by advocate Naman Gupta, contends that the single bench order is overbroad and undermines the constitutional principles of open justice and the public’s right to access judicial records. The appeal argues that once information becomes part of a part of the right to privacy does not ordinarily survive except in recognised statutory or judicial exceptions such as sexual offence cases, juvenile matters and other protected proceedings. The appeal further submits that the standards employed by the single bench. The judgment requires that the information to be no longer relevant” or not to serve a “legitimate public purpose”. The appeal states that once information forms part of public court records, the right to privacy ordinarily does not survive over those records except in recognised statutory or judicial exceptions such as sexual offence cases, juvenile matters and other protected proceedings. Indian Kanoon therefore asserts that the direction to de‑index and mask such records impermissibly extends privacy protections beyond the limits recognised by law.

The platform further argues that the judgment introduces vague expressions such as “no longer relevant” and “legitimate public purpose” without providing clear definitions. According to Indian Kanoon, this lack of precision creates a risk of arbitrary censorship of court records, as different authorities may apply the criteria inconsistently.

Indian Kanoon also emphasises that name‑based search is a fundamental tool for legal research, used extensively by lawyers, litigants, researchers, students and even judges to locate precedents and verify judicial reasoning. Restricting this functionality, the platform claims, disproportionately affects its business operations and infringes the freedom to carry on trade guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Proceedings Before the Division Bench

The matter was taken up today by a division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. Advocate Naman Gupta appeared for Indian Kanoon and sought an early hearing date, noting that many lawyers were abstaining from work on the day of the hearing. The division bench has listed the appeal for further hearing on 21 July.

Implications of the Appeal

If the division bench upholds Indian Kanoon’s contentions, the single bench direction to de‑index and disable name‑based search could be set aside or modified, preserving broader online access to judicial records while still allowing for targeted privacy protections in recognised exceptions. Conversely, should the division bench affirm the single bench reasoning, it would signal a judicial endorsement of a expansive right to be forgotten applied to court records, potentially shaping future policy on the balance between privacy and open justice in India.

The appeal raises significant questions about the scope of informational privacy under Article 21, the standards required for limiting access to public judicial data, and the impact of such limitations on the legal profession’s ability to conduct research. The division bench’s forthcoming decision will be closely watched by legal scholars, publishers and civil society groups concerned with the interplay of privacy rights and transparency in the judicial system.