The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a challenge to a Delhi High Court order upholding a trial court injunction directing media outlets to take down news reports about a man discharged in a criminal case. Emphasising the need to balance freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) and an individual’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21, the court issued notices and scheduled the next hearing for March 16.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan is hearing a special leave petition by a media house challenging a December 18, 2025, Delhi High Court order. That order upheld a trial court’s injunction in a defamation suit, restraining the circulation or publication of news regarding a person who was discharged in a criminal case. The High Court had also directed the removal of existing online reports.
The petitioner media house complied with the order but approached the Supreme Court, contending that the direction violated journalistic freedom and was being widely treated as precedent by other high courts.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the media house, contended that the “right to be forgotten” cannot override freedom of the press, especially in the context of public interest reporting. He submitted:
“Right to know will prevail. The news cannot be erased.”
Datar stressed that the KS Puttaswamy judgment (2017) did not include a right to erase history under the right to privacy. He pointed out that several high courts were relying on the Delhi High Court ruling to order takedowns of historical news reports.
Datar warned against a sweeping interpretation of the “right to be forgotten” that would allow people to demand global removal of digital records, including judicial orders. He questioned:
“If a court makes adverse remarks, this is news. Can those reports be taken down simply because the remarks are later set aside?”
He also noted the practical difficulty in editing or removing news content without compromising the public record of events, especially when a discharge is later challenged.
The court did not stay the defamation proceedings but clarified that the High Court’s order shall not be treated as precedent.
Justice Nagarathna remarked:
“This is a new age. Now, people will like to be forgotten in the age of social media.”
She questioned how the right to be forgotten can be reconciled when the news exists in public memory and online archives.
Justice Bhuyan warned:
“Nowadays a wall of privacy is being created to deny citizens information. It is not good for democracy.”
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the constitutional issues involved and agreed to examine the scope and limits of the right to be forgotten, especially in relation to media reporting and digital archiving.
Several leading media organisations, including legal resource website Indian Kanoon, have joined the challenge. Counsel for Indian Kanoon raised concerns over judicial directions to delete court orders themselves, cautioning that such actions could threaten public access to judicial records.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on July 24, 2024, expressed concern that removing judgments from public platforms after acquittals could have “very serious ramifications”.
The matter has now been posted for further hearing on March 16, with notices issued to the person who sought the takedown and other media respondents.
- Whether the right to be forgotten under Article 21 includes the right to remove news reports and judicial records from the public domain.
- How to reconcile the right to dignity and privacy of acquitted or discharged persons with the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a).
