by 
Delhi HC's Right to be Forgotten: A Step Forward, But Lacks Practicality
The recent Delhi High Court ruling on the right to be forgotten raises more questions than it answers, particularly regarding its feasibility. While the intention behind the ruling is commendable, the lack of a clear framework and practical implementation makes it difficult to take it seriously. Simply granting this right without a robust policy to support it is simply wishful thinking.
The judgment identifies Google and Indian Kanoon as key players, instructing the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to issue directives to them and other search engines in India. However, it remains unclear how comprehensive these directives will be. Will MeitY provide a definitive list of all relevant service providers, or will it issue a broad public instruction? The court's failure to define who exactly the "forgetter" is complicates matters further.
Most individuals don’t delve into legal documents or databases; they rely on news reports and social media for updates. While Google has become synonymous with search, it’s not the sole provider. The court acknowledges the existence of "associate reportage" regarding court orders, yet it does not clarify what obligations these entities have in this context.
Additionally, the court's approach to naming parties in cases is flawed. Legal documents often include vague references like “And Others,” which obscure clarity. Even if names are de-indexed, a simple free-text search could still yield results tied to the order text, undermining the court’s aim.
Regulations that can be easily circumvented raise questions about their effectiveness. Take, for instance, the Do Not Disturb Registry; despite being on it, many continue to receive spam calls. Indian platforms may comply out of fear of contempt, but global entities remain largely unaffected. The internet knows no borders, and the reach of Indian court orders stops at the country’s limits.
Moreover, much of the information on the internet has already been copied into various databases. Legal portals and large language models have ingested extensive court records, making de-indexing efforts largely symbolic. Even if a ruling complicates the aggregation of a person’s name, those determined enough can still find ways around it.
Curiously, the court’s focus on Indian Kanoon seems misplaced, as they merely echo court publications. The Supreme Court’s own search system allows party-name searches with limitations, yet the court shifts the responsibility to third-party providers to "verify" data at the upload stage. This blame should rightly fall on the court's registry, which is responsible for publishing the records in the first place.
The irony is that platforms like Indian Kanoon thrive because official databases are often inadequate. The eCourts portals and other official sites are notoriously slow and inconsistent, hampering access to timely legal information.
While the Delhi High Court's judgment addresses a genuine issue, it lacks a clear path to resolution. The absence of a structured data privacy framework leaves us grappling with subjective interpretations of the right to be forgotten. The court's rejection of certain petitions only adds to the confusion regarding the viability of this principle.
To turn intent into action, comprehensive legislation is needed to define responsibilities among search engines, courts, and data custodians. Forgetting should not solely fall on the easiest targets; it requires a systemic approach that begins at the source of information. Only then can we hope for a truly effective mechanism for forgetting in the digital age.
Comments