The Delhi High Court will conduct a full hearing on September 2 regarding an appeal filed by legal database platform India Kanoon against a single-judge decision that ordered the removal of name-based search capabilities for certain court judgments under the right to be forgotten.
Court Questions Scope of Access to Public Records
During proceedings on Wednesday, a division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar orally remarked that public interest leans toward open access to judicial records. The bench questioned why individuals should be restricted from searching court decisions by a party’s name, noting that members of the public seldom possess specific writ petition numbers or case details required to locate records without name queries.
Legal Platform Challenges Censorship and Privacy Ruling
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing IKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd, argued that the website serves as a free repository hosting untampered judicial decisions from tribunals, high courts, and the Supreme Court. Datar pointed out that while the records in question remain fully searchable on subscription-based legal platforms, the single-judge directive effectively blocks open public access on India Kanoon.
In its appeal, the platform asserted that the May 29 single-judge order established arbitrary standards for de-indexing, expanded state censorship, and infringed on the company’s constitutional right to conduct trade and business under Article 19. India Kanoon also contended that the ruling misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s landmark K.S. Puttaswamy privacy judgment, maintaining that the top court did not grant an unqualified right to erase public judicial records.
Impact on Individuals and Legal Records
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing a litigant who was discharged in a criminal case, opposed the appeal. Sibal stated that judicial rulings remain accessible through specific case details rather than name searches, arguing that removing the de-indexing requirement would leave a permanent social stigma on cleared individuals.
The underlying May 29 verdict addressed more than 35 petitions, directing search engine operators like Google and platforms like India Kanoon to disable name-search functions for private matters or cases resulting in acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement. The order made exceptions for cases involving public servants, elected officials, public trust violations, and severe offences against women and children.
With notice deemed accepted by all parties, the division bench scheduled the appeal for final arguments at 2:30 PM on September 2 after both sides agreed to bypass interim relief applications.
