← Topics 0/10 answered

Topic 052 · Law, Judiciary & Landmark Judgments

Right to be forgotten: Delhi HC on de-indexing

10 MCQs · tap an option to check it · All answers

Revise the 12 points first Book 1 RATNA

Core Trigger: On 29 May 2026 the Delhi High Court decided Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v Union of India (2026:DHC:4891) on the right to be forgotten.
Holding: The right flows from informational privacy under Article 21; Article 226 writs lie against private search engines.
Judge: Justice Sachin Datta delivered the judgment.
Key Terms: De-indexing removes a URL from name-based search results but not the record; masking replaces names in public judgments.
Scope: De-indexing may suit acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing; relief is ordinarily barred for convictions for offences against women or children.
Reach: De-indexing operates globally across all versions and domains of a search engine, not only google.co.in.
India Link: DPDP Act 2023 section 12(3) lets a Data Principal request erasure, adding a statutory route.
Venue: The Delhi High Court sits in New Delhi.
Origin: The EU Court of Justice decided Google Spain v AEPD (Case C-131/12) on 13 May 2014, holding search engines responsible for processing.
Landmark: K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (24 August 2017), a nine-judge Bench, held privacy a fundamental right.
Foreign Law: GDPR Article 17, in force from 25 May 2018, provides erasure, excluding freedom of expression.
Doctrine: The Court said an acquittal buried beneath arrest reports cannot be called an ingredient of open justice.

Question 1 of 10

Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v Union of India (29 May 2026) decided which right?

Show answer

Answer: (B) Right to be forgotten

Core Trigger: On 29 May 2026 the Delhi High Court decided Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v Union of India (2026:DHC:4891) on the right to be forgotten.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 1

Question 2 of 10

The Delhi High Court held the right to be forgotten flows from informational privacy under which Article?

Show answer

Answer: (C) Article 21

Holding: The right flows from informational privacy under Article 21; Article 226 writs lie against private search engines.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 2

Question 3 of 10

Which Justice delivered the judgment in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav?

Show answer

Answer: (C) Justice Sachin Datta

Judge: Justice Sachin Datta delivered the judgment.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 3

Question 4 of 10

Consider: 1. De-indexing deletes the underlying record from the internet. 2. Masking replaces names in public judgments. Which is/are correct?

Show answer

Answer: (B) Only 2

Key Terms: De-indexing removes a URL from name-based search results but not the record; masking replaces names in public judgments.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 4

Question 5 of 10

Consider: 1. De-indexing may suit acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing. 2. Relief is ordinarily available for convictions for offences against children. Which is/are correct?

Show answer

Answer: (A) Only 1

Scope: De-indexing may suit acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing; relief is ordinarily barred for convictions for offences against women or children.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 5

Question 6 of 10

DPDP Act 2023 section 12(3) lets a Data Principal request:

Show answer

Answer: (B) Erasure of personal data

India Link: DPDP Act 2023 section 12(3) lets a Data Principal request erasure, adding a statutory route.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 7

Question 7 of 10

In which city does the Delhi High Court sit?

Show answer

Answer: (D) New Delhi

Venue: The Delhi High Court sits in New Delhi.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 8

Question 8 of 10

Google Spain v AEPD (Case C-131/12) was decided on:

Show answer

Answer: (D) 13 May 2014

Origin: The EU Court of Justice decided Google Spain v AEPD (Case C-131/12) on 13 May 2014, holding search engines responsible for processing.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 9

Question 9 of 10

K.S. Puttaswamy (24 August 2017) was decided by a Bench of how many judges?

Show answer

Answer: (B) Nine

Landmark: K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (24 August 2017), a nine-judge Bench, held privacy a fundamental right.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 10

Question 10 of 10

The Court said an acquittal buried beneath arrest reports cannot be an ingredient of:

Show answer

Answer: (B) Open justice

Doctrine: The Court said an acquittal buried beneath arrest reports cannot be called an ingredient of open justice.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 052, point 12

Answer all ten to see your score

0 of 10 answered · 0 correct

See all answers →Next topic →

Track your weak chapters across all 380 topics — sign in to the free app.

Android app Web app (sign-in needed)

Open this topic in the app (sign-in needed)