Home / Volume 8, Issue 5 / Digital Redemption: Can We Truly Be Forgotten? Open access · CC BY-NC 4.0
Research Paper Volume 8 Issue 5 330 - 338 September 22, 2025

Digital Redemption: Can We Truly Be Forgotten?

Lead author · Corresponding
Harshita Mishra
Student at Faculty of Law, Delhi University, India
View PDF Full text DOIhttps://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.1110649
Abstract

The article explores the evolving concept of the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) in an era where internet permanence regularly poses questions in front of us related to reputation and identities. The author juxtaposes the growing concern of Japan’s jōhatsu phenomenon and literary depictions like H.G. Wells’ The Invisible Man to examine the extent of human desire for a ‘Clean Slate.’ The discussion traces RTBF’s jurisprudential origins from France’s droit à l’oubli to the landmark Google Spain SL v. AEPD (2014) decision, which prompted the inclusion of RTBF in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) under Article 17. This provision enshrines erasure rights while striking a balance between freedom of expression and public interest. The article further examines the applicability of the RTBF within Indian legal discourse, referencing the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, as signals of progress while a comprehensive statute remains absent. In India, RTBF gained recognition through Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a judgment that actively shaped the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. The discussion further incorporates citations to multiple other judicial precedents, including Sri Vasunathan, Zulfiqar Ahman Khan, Vysakh K.G., and ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), highlighting the use of RTBF from protecting victims' dignity to anonymizing acquitted individuals. The article critically examines challenges in adopting RTBF, including conflicts with the Right to Information, transparency concerns, and potential chilling effects on journalism. It advocates for a case-by-case judicial approach, public interest safeguards, and careful distinction between outdated harmful content and truthful public records. Concluding that digital permanence demands a legal mechanism to restore dignity, it calls for India to adopt a robust RTBF regime, ensuring that individuals can choose when their digital shadows fade.

Type
Research Paper
Information
International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 8, Issue 5, Page 330 - 338
DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.1110649
Creative Commons
CC BY-NC 4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © IJLMH 2026
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the author(s) alone and do not reflect the views, policies, or position of the Journal.

Export citation


        
📢 Call for Papers — Volume IX Issue III now open  ·  Impact Factor 7.010  ·  Indexed in HeinOnline, Manupatra & Google Scholar + 1000+ Libraries  ·  Free DOI Submit Now →
Chat with us