UPSC Current Affairs for 9ᵗʰ July 2026

Syllabus Mapping: GS2: GS-II: Issues relating to citizens’ rights, privacy, governance and the balance between Fundamental Rights in the digital age.

                              The exponential growth of digital platforms has made personal information permanent, searchable and globally accessible, intensifying the demand for a Right to be Forgotten (RTBF). While recognised as a facet of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), its implementation requires balancing individual dignity with freedom of expression, open justice and public interest.

What is Right to be Forgtten?

           The Right to be Forgotten is understood as an individual’s claim to restrict or erase access to personal information that is no longer relevant, especially when its continued availability causes disproportionate harm. In India, RTBF is traced to Article 21, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognised privacy as intrinsic to life, dignity, and autonomy. The Court acknowledged informational self-determination as a core component of privacy in a data-driven society.

Challenges Associated with the Right to be Forgotten in the Digital Age

1. Balancing Competing Fundamental Rights: RTBF requires reconciling Article 21 (Privacy) with Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech), open justice and public interest, making absolute enforcement constitutionally difficult.
2. Digital Permanence of Information: Once information is published online, it is replicated across search engines, archives, mirror websites and social media, making complete erasure practically impossible.
3. Absence of a Comprehensive Legal Framework: The DPDP Act, 2023 provides only a limited right to erasure and does not expressly define the scope, procedure or exceptions for RTBF.
4. Open Justice and Judicial Transparency: Removing or anonymising court records may undermine judicial transparency, legal precedents and public confidence in the justice system.
5. AI and Algorithmic Replication: Generative AI models, web crawlers and recommendation algorithms can retain, reproduce or amplify personal information even after it has been deleted from the original source.
6. Cross-Border Data and Jurisdictional Issues: Data stored across multiple jurisdictions makes enforcement difficult due to differing privacy laws and limited extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Significant Case laws and Judicial Interpretations

1. Justice Puttaswamy (2017) Judgement: Recognised Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21; established informational privacy as the constitutional foundation of RTBF.
2. Jorawar Singh Mundy Vs UOI (2021): SC directed Google and legal databases to de-index acquittal-related judgments, recognising reputational harm in the digital era.
3. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav Vs HC of Delhi (2026): Landmark judgment holding RTBF to be a facet of informational privacy under Article 21. Laid down a structured framework favouring de-indexing, masking and anonymisation over deletion, while balancing privacy, open justice and public interest.

Building a Balanced Right to be Forgotten Framework

1. Operationalise the DPDP Framework: Fully implement the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025 to provide a clear mechanism for consent withdrawal, data erasure and grievance redressal.
2. Strengthen the Data Protection Board of India: Empower the Data Protection Board (DPB) with functional independence, technical expertise and appellate procedures to adjudicate RTBF claims transparently.
3. Enact a Dedicated Statutory RTBF Framework: Provide explicit statutory recognition to RTBF by clearly defining eligibility, scope, timelines and exceptions, instead of relying solely on case-by-case judicial development.
4. Institutionalise the Proportionality Test: Mandate that every RTBF request be assessed through the doctrine of proportionality, balancing privacy, freedom of speech, open justice and public interest.
5. Prefer De-indexing and Anonymisation over Deletion: Adopt the principle of minimum necessary restriction by removing search visibility or anonymising identities while preserving judicial records and historical archives. Eg: Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav (2026) preferred de-indexing/anonymisation over complete deletion
6. Strengthen Platform Accountability: Require search engines, social media platforms and AI developers to establish time-bound RTBF grievance mechanisms, transparency reports and periodic compliance audits under the DPDP regime.

Global Best Practices

1. European Union – General Data Protection Regulation (Article 17): Recognises the Right to Erasure, allowing individuals to seek deletion of personal data while balancing freedom of expression, public interest and legal obligations.
2. UK: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) follows a case-by-case proportionality assessment, balancing privacy, public interest and freedom of expression.

              As India builds a Digital India, it must also build a constitutional digital republic where the right to remember and the right to be forgotten coexist in constitutional harmony.