Right to Be Forgotten in India: Article 21, Delhi High Court Judgment & Important MCQs 2026
Right to Be Forgotten in India: Article 21, Delhi High Court Judgment & Important MCQs 2026
The Right to Be Forgotten has become an important issue in the digital age, where personal information can remain searchable on the internet for years. It deals with an individual's ability to seek removal or restriction of access to personal information from public accessibility when that information no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
In an important development, the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. recognised an individual's Right to Be Forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment is particularly significant because it lays down principles concerning when an individual's name may be de-indexed or masked in court records. These concepts attempt to balance an individual's privacy with the continued existence and accessibility of judicial records.
What is the Right to Be Forgotten?
The Right to Be Forgotten refers to the right of an individual to seek removal of, or restricted access to, personal information from public accessibility when such information no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
In the digital environment, old information can continue to appear through online searches even when the circumstances connected with that information have substantially changed. The Right to Be Forgotten therefore raises an important question about balancing personal privacy with legitimate public access to information.
De-indexing vs Masking
De-indexing means removing a person's name as a searchable key without deleting the underlying record. As a result, the record continues to exist, but access through searches based on the person's name is restricted.
According to the judgment discussed in the current affairs material, de-indexing is to operate globally and may be applied in cases ending in acquittal, discharge and similar outcomes. However, it cannot be applied in cases involving offences against women, children or breach of public trust.
Masking, on the other hand, means replacing names and personal identifiers in judicial records with neutral labels such as "XYZ". Therefore, de-indexing and masking are related privacy-protection mechanisms, but they operate differently.
Quick Revision Points
Important Case: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Constitutional Connection: Article 21
Related Fundamental Right: Right to Privacy
Right to Be Forgotten: Seeking removal or restricted public access to personal information that no longer serves a legitimate purpose
De-indexing: Removes the person's name as a searchable key without deleting the record
Operation of De-indexing: Globally
Possible Application: Cases ending in acquittal, discharge, etc.
Important Exceptions: Cases against women, children or involving breach of public trust
Masking: Replacing names and personal identifiers with neutral labels such as XYZ
POINT TO REMEMBER:-
Q1) Which High Court recognised an individual's Right to Be Forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental Right to Privacy?
A) Bombay High Court
B) Delhi High Court
C) Madras High Court
D) Calcutta High Court
Answer:=> B) Delhi High Court
Explanation: The Delhi High Court recognised an individual's Right to Be Forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21.
Q2) The Right to Be Forgotten was discussed in which of the following cases?
A) SaveLIFE Foundation v. Union of India
B) Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
C) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Karnataka
D) State of Orissa v. Government of India
Answer:=> B) Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Explanation: The Delhi High Court dealt with the Right to Be Forgotten in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Q3) The Right to Be Forgotten has been recognised as an integral facet of which fundamental right?
A) Right to Equality
B) Right to Freedom of Religion
C) Right to Privacy
D) Right against Exploitation
Answer:=> C) Right to Privacy
Explanation: The Delhi High Court recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as an integral facet of the fundamental Right to Privacy.
Q4) The Right to Privacy, with which the Right to Be Forgotten has been linked, falls under which Article of the Constitution?
A) Article 14
B) Article 19
C) Article 21
D) Article 32
Answer:=> C) Article 21
Explanation: The judgment recognised the Right to Be Forgotten as part of the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21.
Q5) Which of the following best describes the Right to Be Forgotten?
A) The right to permanently delete every government record relating to an individual
B) The right to seek removal or restricted access to personal information from public accessibility when it no longer serves a legitimate purpose
C) The right to prevent courts from maintaining judicial records
D) The right to prevent the government from collecting any information
Answer:=> B) The right to seek removal or restricted access to personal information from public accessibility when it no longer serves a legitimate purpose
Explanation: The Right to Be Forgotten allows an individual to seek removal of, or restricted access to, personal information from public accessibility when that information no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
Q6) What does "de-indexing" mean in the context of the Right to Be Forgotten?
A) Permanently destroying the entire judicial record
B) Removing a person's name as a searchable key without deleting the record
C) Removing all court judgments from the internet
D) Replacing the entire judgment with a confidential document
Answer:=> B) Removing a person's name as a searchable key without deleting the record
Explanation: De-indexing removes the individual's name as a searchable key but does not delete the underlying record. This limits access to the record through name-based searches.
Q7) According to the judgment discussed in the material, de-indexing is to operate:
A) Only within the concerned state
B) Only within India
C) Globally
D) Only on government websites
Answer:=> C) Globally
Explanation: The material specifically states that de-indexing is to be operated globally.
Q8) De-indexing under the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court may be applicable in cases ending in:
A) Acquittal or discharge
B) Conviction for every serious offence
C) Breach of public trust only
D) Offences against children only
Answer:=> A) Acquittal or discharge
Explanation: The material identifies cases ending in acquittal, discharge and similar outcomes as situations where de-indexing may be applied.
Q9) In which of the following cases can de-indexing NOT be applied according to the judgment?
1. Cases against women
2. Cases against children
3. Cases involving breach of public trust
A) 1 only
B) 1 and 2 only
C) 2 and 3 only
D) 1, 2 and 3
Answer:=> D) 1, 2 and 3
Explanation: The judgment identifies important exceptions to de-indexing. It cannot be applied in cases against women, children or cases involving breach of public trust.
Q10) What is meant by "masking" in judicial records?
A) Deleting the complete judicial decision
B) Preventing judges from accessing a case record
C) Replacing names and personal identifiers with neutral labels
D) Removing the case from the judicial system
Answer:=> C) Replacing names and personal identifiers with neutral labels
Explanation: Masking involves replacing names and other personal identifiers in judicial records with neutral labels such as "XYZ".
Q11) Consider the following statements regarding de-indexing and masking:
1. De-indexing removes a person's name as a searchable key without deleting the underlying record.
2. Masking replaces names and personal identifiers in judicial records with neutral labels.
3. De-indexing necessarily results in complete deletion of the judicial record.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
A) 1 only
B) 1 and 2 only
C) 2 and 3 only
D) 1, 2 and 3
Answer:=> B) 1 and 2 only
Explanation: Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect because de-indexing does not delete the underlying record; it removes the person's name as a searchable key and thereby limits name-based access.
Q12) Which of the following correctly distinguishes de-indexing from masking?
A) De-indexing deletes a record, while masking destroys all personal information permanently.
B) De-indexing restricts name-based searchability, while masking replaces names and identifiers with neutral labels.
C) Both necessarily delete the original judicial record.
D) There is no difference between the two concepts.
Answer:=> B) De-indexing restricts name-based searchability, while masking replaces names and identifiers with neutral labels.
Explanation: De-indexing and masking protect privacy in different ways. De-indexing prevents a person's name from functioning as a searchable key without deleting the record, whereas masking substitutes names and personal identifiers in the judicial record with neutral labels such as "XYZ".
Why is the Right to Be Forgotten Important?
The Right to Be Forgotten reflects an important challenge of the digital age: information can remain publicly searchable long after the circumstances surrounding it have changed. The Delhi High Court judgment discussed above provides principles for limiting name-based accessibility in appropriate cases while preserving the underlying judicial record.
The distinction between de-indexing and masking is especially important for competitive examinations. De-indexing does not mean that the original record is deleted. Instead, it restricts discovery through a person's name. Masking operates differently by replacing names and personal identifiers in judicial records with neutral labels.
Conclusion
The Right to Be Forgotten represents the growing importance of privacy in an increasingly digital society. The Delhi High Court's decision in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. linked this right with the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21 and laid down principles concerning de-indexing and masking of judicial records.
For competitive examinations, remember five key points: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav case, Delhi High Court, Article 21, De-indexing and Masking. Also remember that de-indexing does not erase the original record and that the judgment identifies exceptions for cases against women, children and those involving breach of public trust.
