More than a decade ago, Right to be forgotten (also known as RTBF) was first considered in a court in Argentina. In the case Da Cunha v. Yahoo de Argentina SRL and Others, it was an Argentinian pop artist who had won a trial court action against Google and Yahoo, ordering them to delete content that erroneously connected her to pornography. The Appeals Court reversed this decision in late 2014, and the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Search Engines. Parallel to this, Europe made headlines by recognising RTBF as a component of the then-under-development General Data Protection Regulation. The RTBF was characterized and recognized by the European Union’s Court of Justice. After a given amount of time, it was believed to be legislation that compelled the online publication of results that were no longer relevant to be halted.
Eventually, Google found itself in a lot of lawsuits as it is the largest data collector in the world. After the mention of RTBF in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Google received approximately 2.5 million requests from Europe to remove the information of which, according to google, 43% was removed. Since then Google and other search engines like Yahoo have found themselves in a lot of legal battles in various countries like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, etc. Moreover, Google and France have been a significant legal battle since 2014 over the scope of the right to be forgotten.
Eventually, after much litigation and deliberation, a more comprehensive definition of RBTF was formed. “It was the right to have publicly available personal information removed from the internet, search databases, websites or any other public platforms, once the personal information in question is no longer necessary or relevant.”
INDIA AND THE INTERPLAY OF ‘RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN’
Therefore with all of this happening in different judiciaries is around the world, India was not far away from recognizing the same. In the forthcoming section, I have analysed the same by dividing it into two perspectives, as, if right to be forgotten were to become a right in our country it has to have both legislative and judicial value.
LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Coming to India, not much has been done in regards to RTBF. However, it has been recognized under Section 20 of the Personal Data Protection Bill of 2019 but it is yet to be passed by the Parliament and still with the standing committee for due deliberations.
The PDP Bill’s Section 20 establishes three situations under which an individual’s data might be deleted from the internet.
1. It has fulfilled the objective for which it was collected, or it is no longer required for that reason.
2. Was created with the individual’s agreement, which has subsequently been revoked
3. Was created in violation of the PDP bill or any other legislation in effect. However, the clause limited the enforcement of this privilege to orders issued by the bill’s adjudicating officer.
Therefore, in determining whether any data should be deleted, the appointed Adjudicating Officer has to emphasize on –
• The level of sensitivity of personal data,
• The scope of disclosure and degree of accessibility sought to be restricted or prohibited,
• The role of data principle in public life,
• The public’s relevance of personal data and the nature of the data fiduciary’s disclosure of actions,
• Specifically, whether data fiduciary systematically allows access to personal data while avoiding activities that would be severely hampered if relevant disclosures were restricted or prohibited
JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE
Judiciary of our country has always been over-arching in recognising the rights of citizens and therefore in this case too various High Courts have resolutely recognised right to be forgotten as an important remedy for Indian citizens.
Dharmaraj Bhanushankar Dave V. State of Gujarat, tried before the Gujarat High Court, was the first case in India using the notion of the “Right to be Forgotten.” The High Court refused to acknowledge RTBF in its decision, claiming that no law on the matter had been enacted and hence no rights had been violated. The case began when the petitioner requested the removal of a published judgement in which he had been acquitted but which was interfering with his career and personal life.
Vasunathan v. Karnataka High Court, Karnataka High Court, In keeping with the trend in western countries, the registrar general of the High Court of Karnataka acknowledges the right to be forgotten “in delicate matters involving women in general and especially sensitive instances concerning right perfecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned.” As a result, the court ordered the registrar to remove the petitioner’s name and other personal information from the cause title and body of the order.
In November 2020, the Orissa High Court investigated and upheld the right to be forgotten as a remedy for the victim in the case of Subhranshu Raut @ Gugul V. State of Odisha. Some sexually graphic videos/pictures of a female were posted on Facebook in this case. The High Court then discussed how, despite the fact that the Indian criminal justice system takes strong action against terrible crimes, there is no procedure for an individual to have any disagreeable material removed from the internet. As a result, the court concluded that the RTBF in India will serve a critical role in safeguarding women’s cyber interests.
Delhi High Court in the case of Jorawer Singh Mundy V. Union of India and ors. upheld the right to be forgotten and directed IndiaKannoon and Google to erase information pertaining to the petitioner. Hence we can see that how various High Courts in different parts of our country are acting in a uniform manner in relation to right to be forgotten, signaling that there is widespread acceptance regarding this in the judiciary of India.
Moreover, this right becomes more essential in India as every person knows the societal value of his/her reputation. Whenever a person applies for a job what is looking to get married a thorough profile review of that person is done. Therefore whenever a person gets involved in a court case it becomes somewhat damaging to his profile and therefore more and more people good Mont that information to be released from the internet so that it does not come his/her future endeavors.
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion, one can analyze the importance of the right to be forgotten. From the matters in the Indian courts and the jurisprudence derived from them, it seems that their attitude towards the same is very optimistic. In the three cases cited above, two of them have adjudicated the matter in favor of the right to be forgotten whereas the one involving Gujarat High Court has stated that due to no law in force regarding the same no matter can be adjudicated in favor of the above-mentioned right. This right was also mentioned in the landmark judgment of KS Puttaswamy v the Union of India, wherein the court emphasized the importance of this right in the coming times. The Apex Court stated that ‘the right to be forgotten’ is a very essential part of the right to privacy and autonomy. The court highlighted its importance and stated that our legislature should review the GDPR and derive similar legislation. The Supreme Court in the said judgment also prescribed certain limitations on the above-mentioned right. It stated that this right could not be exercised if the information is about the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes, in the exercise of defense of legal claims et cetera.
Therefore now the onus is on our legislature to derive a legal framework granting this right to the Indian citizens. This right is very essential as in a lot of cases we have seen that even if people get acquitted the said case has a lasting and very negative impact on their future, affecting their professional and personal life. Hence no one would want to get affected by something which they have not done or is a matter of past. A person’s personal as well as professional information is publicly known to everyone through the internet and hence in this era if a person is not having a right to control that information, it would lead to a very disastrous impact on the person’s life and all the spheres attached to it.
Google has found itself in a lot of lawsuits as it is the largest data collector in the world. After the mention of RTBF in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Google received approximately 2.5 million requests from Europe to remove the information of which, according to Google, 43% was removed. Since then Google and other search engines like Yahoo have found themselves in a lot of legal battles in various countries like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, etc. Moreover, Google and France have been a significant legal battle since 2014 over the scope of the right to be forgotten.
