From Stigma to Solace: A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Oblivion in India and the U.K.
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-2-134-153
Abstract
The concept of a “fresh start” has been recognized worldwide, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitative justice and legal forgiveness. This article examines the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the right to oblivion in India, particularly as it pertains to individuals acquitted of criminal charges. Indian High Courts have increasingly affirmed this right as a means of safeguarding the privacy, dignity, autonomy, and reputation of individuals. They have also underscored the principle of a fresh start, as seen in the Madras High Court’s decision in Karthiсk Theodore case, acknowledging the lasting stigma of criminal accusations that can obstruct future opportunities. Presently, the portal Indian Kanoon has appealed this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that it has a duty to keep the public informed because the case implicates the principle of open justice. This has opened up an important opportunity for the Court to determine the contours of this right. Meanwhile, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has recognized the right to oblivion in a case wherein the petitioner was acquitted of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to protect his family life, his younger child, and his future prospects. However, the Court has not offered an adequate guidance on balancing the competing rights of privacy and freedom of information. The study examines the intricate relationship between the right to oblivion and other fundamental rights, such as privacy, dignity, autonomy, and the freedoms of speech, expression, and information. To provide a comparative framework, the research analyses the landmark U.K. case NT1 and NT2 v. Google, which presents a thoughtful approach to balancing these competing rights. By conducting a comprehensive analysis and proposing potential guidelines, this paper aims to contribute to establishing a robust legal framework for the right to oblivion in India.
About the Authors
V. Singh
Dhirubhai Ambani University
India
India
Vini Singh (Gujarat, India) – Associate Professor, School of Law
DA-IICT Rd., Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382007
A. Dadhich
Tashkent State Law University
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Avinash Dadhich – Research Fellow
35 Sayilgokh St., Tashkent, 100047
S. Chaudhary
Om Sterling Global University
India
India
Shivani Chaudhary – PhD Scholar
NH-52, Hisar-Chandigarh Rd., Hisar, Haryana, 125001
References
1. Ambrose, M. L., & Ausloos, J. (2013). The right to be forgotten across the pond. Journal of Information Policy, 3, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.3.2013.0001
2. Ausloos, J. (2020). The right to erasure in EU data protection law: From individual rights to effective protection. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847977.001.0001
3. Cyman, D., Gromova, E., & Juchnevicius, E. (2021). Regulation of artificial intelligence in BRICS and the European Union. BRICS Law Journal, 8(1), 86–115. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2021-8-1-86-115
4. Floridi, L. (2005). The ontological interpretation of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0001-7
5. Gratton, E., & Polonetsky, J. (2017). Droit À L’ Oubli: Canadian perspective on the global right to be forgotten debate. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 15, 337–392.
6. Kohl, U. (2023). The right to be forgotten in data protection law and two western cultures of privacy. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 72(3), 737–769. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000258
7. Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2011). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400838455
8. Post, R. C. (2018). Data privacy and dignitary privacy: Google Spain, the right to be forgotten, and the construction of the public sphere. Duke Law Journal, 67(5), 981. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2953468
9. Simpson, A. L. (1976). Rehabilitation as the justification of a separate juvenile justice system. California Law Review, 64(4), 984–1017. https://doi.org/10.2307/3479922
10. Solove, D. J. (2005). Of privacy and poop: Norm enforcement via the blogosphere. Teach Privacy.
11. Upadhyay, N. K., & Romashkin, S. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to address criminal justice needs, problems and perspectives. In N. S. Malik et al. (Eds.), Legal analytics: The future of analytics in law (pp. 21–34). Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003215998-3
12. Volokh, E. (2000). Freedom of speech and information privacy: The troubling implications of a right to stop people from speaking about you. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1049. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229510
Review
For citations:
Singh V., Dadhich A., Chaudhary S. From Stigma to Solace: A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Oblivion in India and the U.K. BRICS Law Journal. 2026;13(2):134-153. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-2-134-153
Views:
64
JATS XML
Email this article 