Entitled To Right To Be Forgotten & Protection From Invasion Of Privacy': Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To...
🧾 Case Title:
X v. Union of India & Others
Delhi High Court, 2021
(Civil Suit – CS(OS) 392/2021)
Presiding Judge: Justice Asha Menon
⚖️ Background:
The plaintiff is a Bengali actress who was approached by a film production company for a web series.
She was asked to shoot a demo video, including intimate and frontal nudity scenes, with assurances that it was only for internal review and she would get the lead role.
The web series was never made. However, later, the demo footage was uploaded online (e.g., on YouTube) by the producers.
Even after the producer removed the videos upon her request, third-party websites and social media users began circulating the footage, sometimes with lewd comments.
The plaintiff received harassing calls, suffered character assassination, and experienced a mental breakdown due to unwanted digital exposure.
đź“Ś Legal Issues Involved:
Does an individual have a Right to Be Forgotten under Indian law?
Can courts issue interim orders to take down content that violates an individual's privacy and dignity?
How do courts balance privacy rights with the freedom of expression and public interest?
🧑‍⚖️ Court’s Observations:
1. Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in:
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
A nine-judge bench held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Privacy includes the right to control one’s personal information, dignity, and freedom from unwanted publicity.
The Delhi High Court reiterated that the Right to Be Forgotten is a natural extension of the right to privacy, particularly in the digital age.
2. Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) – Indian Context
Although India does not have a codified RTBF, the Court recognized its growing significance, especially in the digital era where online content has perpetual life.
Supporting Case Law:
Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha, 2020 (Orissa HC)
Recognized RTBF as an aspect of the right to privacy.
Noted that even after a person is acquitted, digital records continue to haunt them—damaging social and professional life.
Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India, 2021 (Delhi HC)
Petitioner was acquitted of drug charges in the U.S.
Court ordered Google and IndianKanoon to remove the judgment from search results.
Held that continued availability of outdated legal information harmed the petitioner’s right to privacy.
Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Media Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (Delhi HC)
In the context of the #MeToo movement, the Court restrained publication of allegations against the petitioner to protect his dignity and reputation.
Recognized "right to be left alone" as part of the right to privacy.
3. Protection from Invasion by Strangers
The Court emphasized that constant online sharing of explicit content without consent constitutes a gross invasion of privacy.
It leads to mental harassment, especially when the content is not for public distribution and lacks any public interest justification.
The plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of confidentiality regarding the videos.
4. Interim Relief Granted
Despite no final ruling, the Court acknowledged immediate and irreparable harm and granted the following interim relief:
➤ For Content Publishers (Defendants 1–36):
Directed to take down all videos, clips, thumbnails, and related audio content within 36 hours.
Barred from re-uploading or sharing the content on any platform or website.
➤ For Intermediaries (Defendants 37–68):
Directed to disclose server logs and IP details of those uploading and distributing the plaintiff's videos.
Assist in tracking and preventing further dissemination.
➤ For Search Engines (Google, Bing – Defendants 69–70):
Ordered to de-index and remove the video links from search results.
Ensure that the content does not show up in future searches related to the plaintiff.
🛡️ Anonymity of Plaintiff
The Court ensured the plaintiff’s identity was kept confidential in all records.
She was referred to as “X” in proceedings to protect her dignity, safety, and mental health.
đź“š Legal Doctrines Applied:
| Doctrine / Right | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Fundamental right under Article 21. Includes control over personal data, bodily autonomy, and dignity. |
| Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) | The right of individuals to have personal information removed from public access when no longer necessary. |
| Right to be Left Alone | Subset of privacy, particularly relevant when individuals face unwanted public scrutiny or digital harassment. |
| Balancing Test | Courts must balance privacy rights with freedom of expression, but where no public interest is involved, privacy prevails. |
⚖️ Significance of the Judgment
Judicial Recognition of RTBF despite no statutory law.
Expanded privacy protections to digital platforms and search engines.
Acknowledged gender and reputational harm, especially relevant for women in the entertainment industry.
Interim remedy as a powerful tool to stop online harassment before final verdicts.
đź“Ś Summary
The Delhi HC granted interim relief to a woman seeking removal of explicit content from the internet, recognizing her right to privacy, RTBF, and dignity.
The Court directed content removal, search de-indexing, and data disclosure, acknowledging the mental harm caused by unwanted exposure.
It drew on constitutional principles and prior case law to extend protection in the digital space.
RELATED Blog
0 comments