VIDEO EXPLAINER | 10 NOVEMBER 2026
As per the video, a person who is acquitted can still find the word arrest next to their name on Google. The Delhi High Court treated the right to be forgotten as a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment was written by Justice Sachin Datta, and the video says that a single judgment is all there is for now, because the result of the appeal is still awaited.
What happened
The Delhi High Court held that the right to be forgotten forms part of Article 21. The Court also said that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even against private search engines.
The video explains the two remedies. De-indexing means that when a person searches by the name, the URL does not show up. The record itself is not deleted. Masking means the names are changed in the public digital versions, while the original record stays safe in the court.
On when the relief may be justified, the video lists acquittal, discharge, closure and quashing. But in offences against women or children, this relief is generally not available on conviction.
The video also says that the de-indexing applies globally, to all the domains of the search engine, and not only to the Indian domain of Google.
Indian Kanoon has been asked to stop name-based search, not to remove the judgments themselves.
Background and the rules behind it
The video links the right to privacy to the Puttaswamy judgment. As per the video, that nine judge bench judgment of 2017 made privacy a fundamental right, and it is the base on which the right to be forgotten is argued.
The video notes a counter-point from the Rajagopal case. There the Court said that court records, being public records, generally do not get privacy protection. So the question is how much privacy a person can claim over a public court record, and the High Court answered it by restricting name-based search, not by erasing the record.
The video also mentions the DPDP Act, which has a right of erasure but is not yet in force.
Because it is only one High Court judgment and the outcome of the appeal is awaited, exam answers should present it as the current position and not as settled law.
Key terms
- Right to be forgotten: The claim that old, resolved criminal matters should not keep following a person online. The Delhi High Court read it into Article 21.
- De-indexing: Removing a URL from results when the name is searched. The record is not deleted.
- Masking: Changing names in public digital versions while the original court record remains safe.
- Writ under Article 226: A High Court remedy. The Court held it is maintainable even against private search engines.
- Open justice: The principle that court proceedings should be open to the public.
Constitutional / Legal / Institutional framework
- Article 21: the right to be forgotten was treated as a fundamental right under it.
- Article 226: a writ petition lies even against private search engines, as held in the video.
- Puttaswamy (2017, nine judge bench): privacy is a fundamental right.
- Rajagopal: public records such as court records generally do not get privacy protection.
- DPDP Act: has a right of erasure, but is not yet in force.
CLAT angle
- Right to be forgotten is read into Article 21 by the Delhi High Court (Justice Sachin Datta).
- Article 226 writ is maintainable against private search engines.
- De-indexing hides the URL on name search; masking changes names in public versions; neither deletes the court record.
- Relief generally not available on conviction in offences against women or children.
- De-indexing is global: all domains of the search engine.
Key facts
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Article 21 | Right to be forgotten treated as a fundamental right |
| Article 226 | Writ maintainable against private search engines |
| De-indexing | URL does not show on name search; record not deleted |
| Masking | Names changed in public versions; original court record safe |
| Scope | All domains of the search engine, not only the Indian one |
| Puttaswamy, 2017 | Nine judge bench; privacy is a fundamental right |
| Status | Single judgment; outcome of the appeal awaited |
Mnemonic / memory hook
Hide the link, keep the record.
De-indexing hides the URL on a name search. Masking changes names in the public copy. The court record itself stays. And the whole thing is one judgment, with the appeal still awaited.
Why this matters for exams
This topic tests whether you can separate three things: erasing a record, de-indexing a link and masking a name. The video is clear that the Court did not order deletion of any record.
A second favourite is the constitutional hook. The right is read under Article 21, the remedy is a writ under Article 226, and the base case is Puttaswamy. Pair each with its role.
Finally, remember the limits. Relief may be justified after acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing, but generally not on conviction in offences against women or children, and the Rajagopal position on public court records pulls the other way.
Source
This article summarises the video explainer. Status is as of 5 Nov 2026, as per the video; the outcome of the appeal is awaited.
Free in the CLAT Gurukul app
These notes (as a PDF lesson) and the 10-question CBT are in the app under Current Affairs → 10 Nov 2026. Get the app on Google Play or open app.clatgurukul.com.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
