'Right To Be Forgotten' Has Various Shapes & Shades, Blanket Orders Cannot Be Passed: Google Argues In Delhi High Court

Google India today told the Delhi High Court that the "Right to be Forgotten" has various shapes and shades and thus passing of protective orders would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It argued that one blanket order cannot determine the width of the Right to be Forgotten.

The submission was made before a bench of Justice Yashwant Varma, hearing a batch of petitions filed seeking protective orders in light of the aforementioned right.

The counsel for Google, which is one of the Respondents in the matters, highlighted that the application of the "Right to be Forgotten" differed in different cases. In this context, he also submitted that the first ex-parte order passed in this matter was being used repeatedly as a precedent in different courts and causing a snowballing effect.

When enquired how the order was causing a snowballing effect, the counsel stated that many people had been approaching different courts and stating that the Delhi High court had recognised the Right to be Forgotten.

For context, the order in question, Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India & Ors. was regarding the blocking of a judgment of an American citizen acquitted in an NDPS case on Google and Indian Kanoon. In this case, the single judge bench led by Justice Pratibha Singh noted that despite being acquitted in the case, the petitioner was facing irreparable prejudice in his social life and career prospects due to the judgment being available on a google search to any potential employer who wanted to conduct his background verification before employing him. Thus, the Court had held that the petitioner was entitled to some interim protection. While doing the same, the court stated that the issue of Right to be Forgotten required consideration and would have to be adjudicated by the Court. 

The counsel representing Google stated that there are various shapes and shades of right to be forgotten. For instance, if someone had a sexually explicit image of them available on google, then they undoubtedly would have a right for removal of the same. However, the same might not be available as a right in other circumstances. He stated that the court had set up committees to look into what had to be done and that the respondent had no problem with the same. However, with privacy on one side, the right to be forgotten on another side and the grey area that existed in between, nuanced application for the matter was required.

Taking note of various facets, the court stated that the respondents may submit brief synopsis of their submissions and a compilation of all judgements they wish to rely upon.

The court also directed that Google India was to be deleted as a party from the matters and Google LLP was to be impleaded in its place. All other news portals which had already been arrayed as respondents were also directed to file replies. 

The matters are now listed for 12th October 2022.

Also Read: Right To Be Forgotten Depends On How Far It Has To Be Stretched, Rights Have To Be Balanced: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Moleesha v. Union of India & Ors. (and other connected matters)