The Delhi High Court has raised concerns over the possible impact of the “right to be forgotten” on lawyers who depend on free online platforms to research judgments.
The issue came up during the hearing of appeals filed by Indian Kanoon against an earlier decision that allowed individuals, in certain circumstances, to seek the removal or masking of their names from searchable versions of court judgments.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar questioned whether restricting searchable information on free legal platforms could make access to important case law difficult for a large section of the legal profession.
‘What About Lawyers Who Cannot Afford SCC Online?’
During the proceedings, the Bench focused on the financial reality of legal research.
The Court observed that many lawyers, particularly those practising in smaller towns and handling ordinary civil and criminal matters, may not be able to afford subscriptions to expensive legal research platforms.
Free platforms such as Indian Kanoon are therefore an important source of judgments for such lawyers.
The Bench questioned whether it would be sufficient to tell lawyers that the judgments remain available on paid services such as SCC Online or Manupatra.
The Court pointed out that access to legal judgments is not merely a matter of convenience for advocates. Lawyers need case law to prepare arguments, advise clients and conduct litigation.
Why Indian Kanoon Is Challenging the Earlier Order
The present dispute arises from a June 1, 2026 decision of the Delhi High Court concerning the right to be forgotten.
The earlier ruling recognised that, in appropriate circumstances, individuals could seek the removal or masking of their names from searchable online versions of judicial decisions.
The underlying reasoning involved concerns surrounding privacy and the continued online availability of information that may no longer have a legitimate public purpose.
Indian Kanoon challenged the decision before the Division Bench, raising concerns about the practical consequences of removing or masking information from its searchable database.
The Problem With Hiding Case Names
One of the central questions before the Court is how lawyers would locate a judgment if the case name is no longer searchable.
The Bench questioned whether advocates could realistically be expected to search for judgments only through case numbers or dates.
Lawyers often come across hundreds of judgments during their practice. Remembering the exact case number or date of every decision is not practical.
According to the Court’s observations, if the name of a case is removed from search results, the judgment could effectively become much harder to locate even if the underlying document technically continues to exist.
That raises a different question from whether a judgment has been deleted altogether: Can information remain publicly available in theory but become practically inaccessible in reality?
Privacy Versus Access to Judicial Records
The case brings two important interests into conflict.
On one side is the privacy of individuals whose names appear in judgments. A person may argue that continued online visibility of an old case can affect their personal or professional life long after the proceedings have ended.
On the other side is the principle of public access to judicial decisions.
Court judgments are routinely used by lawyers, judges, researchers, journalists and students. Searchable databases have made this information considerably easier to access.
The question before the Court is therefore not simply whether a person should have privacy. It also involves determining how such privacy protections should operate without creating unnecessary barriers to accessing judicial records.
Indian Kanoon’s Role in the Debate
Indian Kanoon has become widely used because it provides access to Indian judgments without requiring users to purchase expensive subscriptions.
This has particular significance for lawyers and law students who may not have access to commercial research services.
The current litigation could therefore have implications beyond the parties involved.
If information is required to be masked or removed from free searchable databases, the practical effect on legal research could depend on whether the same information remains easily accessible elsewhere.
The Delhi High Court’s latest observations indicate that the accessibility of judgments is an important consideration while examining the scope of the right to be forgotten.
Matter to Be Heard Again
The Division Bench has not yet delivered a final decision on the appeals.
The Court is expected to continue examining how privacy rights can be balanced with meaningful public access to judicial decisions and legal research.
The matter is scheduled to come up again on September 21, 2026.
