New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday warned that judicial directives requiring the removal of news reports and articles could have troubling implications for democracy, as it stayed a Delhi High Court order that allowed the invocation of the “right to be forgotten” to demand the removal of online content related to criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court order that allowed invocation of the “right to be forgotten” to demand removal of online content related to criminal proceedings. (Jitender Gupta)A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuiyan commented that it may not be the court’s role to decide what the media will publish or remove, even as it acknowledged that the competing claims of privacy, dignity and freedom of the press raise “compelling” and complex questions that require careful balancing.
“Nowadays, people want to build a strong wall of privacy around them… and courts give orders, which may not be good for democracy,” the bench observed, agreeing to examine whether courts can order removal of online content if a person has been exonerated following judicial process.
The court was hearing a petition filed by IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd challenging the Delhi High Court order dated December 18, 2025, which upheld an interim injunction barring the continued online dissemination of news linking banker Nitin Bhatnagar to criminal charges, despite his acquittal and subsequent acquittal.
Admitting the plea, the Supreme Court issued notices to Bhatnagar and several media houses, including ANI, HT Media, Times Internet and NDTV, which were impleaded as parties before the High Court. The next hearing will be held on March 16.
More Read
During the hearing, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for IE Online Media, argued that the right to be forgotten cannot extend to deletion of news reports. “The right to privacy does not include the right to erasure of history,” he submitted, relying on the nine-judge bench judgment in the KS Puttaswamy case (2017). Datar warned that if such orders were allowed to stand, reports on cases like the 2G spectrum scam would be taken down as the accused were acquitted.
The bench responded that even if the issue is brief, the court cannot be the arbiter of the historical record. Citing its earlier ruling in Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI, the court noted that “it is not the duty of the court to take down articles or news items,” warning that an overly broad approach would leave “no information available.”
In its brief order, the court recorded that IE Online Media complied with the High Court’s direction to protest the removal of the content. However, it stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court order as a precedent, observing that the direction should not be followed in similar cases when the Supreme Court examines the matter on merits.
More Read
The Delhi High Court, in its December judgment, held that the continued digital availability of reports linking Bhatnagar to alleged financial irregularities violated his right to privacy, dignity and to be forgotten under Article 21, even though the reports were accurate at the time of publication. It argued that once criminal proceedings are concluded for the individual, public interest in continued publicity wanes, while reputational damage continues due to the permanence and proliferation of online content.
The High Court also held that claims founded on privacy and dignity are distinct from defamation and not subject to the one-year limitation applicable to defamation, and that updates or clarifications attached to articles were insufficient to neutralize reputational harm.
Friday’s Supreme Court order echoes its recent jurisprudence that reaffirms media freedom and open justice. In May 2025, the Supreme Court struck down a Delhi High Court direction asking Wikipedia to remove content related to a defamation suit initiated by ANI, saying the court should not assume the editor’s role. The judgment emphasized that freedom of the press is an aspect of Article 19(1)(a) and restrictions on reporting judicial proceedings must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality.
