Delhi Court Orders Google and Media to Remove Articles on Acquitted Man

A Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Digital Privacy.

Delhi court has made a major order that strengthens the Right to be Forgotten in India. The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Patiala house courts has ordered big tech giants and media houses to delete certain material. This material can be traced to a banker that was cleared in a high profile money laundering case despite having been accused in the past. This ruling of the court is one of the greatest achievements of those struggling to defend their reputation in the digital era. It brings out the increasing acknowledgment of the law that the past should not follow an individual everywhere.

Specifically, the order addresses the search engine Google and legal database India Kanoon. It also has some of the leading media companies like The Times Group and The Indian Express. They are instructed to de-index or remove articles and links that reference the name of the banker with regard to the case. The court noted that the retention of such articles online has no purpose to the people after the individual has been established innocent. This action is viewed as a step towards the right to strike equilibrium between the right to information and the right to privacy.

The judge, Anju Bajaj Chandna, pointed out that the internet leaves permanent trace that may be harmful. This is because regardless of the fact that a court of law has cleared a person, through online search the person still appears as an accused. This “digital stigma” may destroy careers and personal lives even after legal fight is won. According to the court, the plaintiff has a dignified right to live, which is enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The decision essentially dictates that the exoneration of a person should also be portrayed in the online presence.

The case is of special significance as it provides a precedent of how search engines should deal with such requests. Generally, such sites as Google claim to be mere intermediaries and have nothing to do with the content. This decree however directs them to actively intervene to prevent the spread of certain URLs. It places the burden on these platforms to make sure that the old and malicious information is not readily available. This may result in an increased number of individuals visiting courts in order to fix their online records once acquitted by the law.

The History to the Moser Baer Case.

The legal fight owes to the controversial Moser Baer money laundering case that consisted of immense amounts of money. The plaintiff of this case was a banker who was named by the Enforcement Directorate as an accused. The investigation phase involved the hard scrutiny of the media and the populace to investigate him and to arrest him. Nonetheless, he was later acquitted of any charges by the court process and this showed that he was found not guilty of any of the charges. In August of the last year he was formally dismissed of the case.

The internet did not change even after his discharge and the rejection of the complaint later in July 2025. Even a basic search of his name continued to give more than dozens of news stories tagging him as an accused in a fraud case. The banker alleged that these reports were true when they were written but became misleading. They established an image of a man that was no more and legally wrong. This difference between his real life and the one he was projecting online was driving him to great agony.

The banker informed the court that these outstanding articles were making his professional reputation to be ruined. Trust and integrity in banking and finance sector is the key to any career advancement. The ever-present presence of a money laundering scandal ensured that he could not find new jobs and restructure his life. He said that the permanence of these digital records was like a kind of endless punishment. He pleaded that the right to life extends the right not to suffer such unfair reputational damage.

The court saw some merit in his submissions that the articles lost their relevance. The society never had a genuine need to know about the previous allegations, as the criminal business was over and the timespan of the case was long gone. The judge observed that the further issue of these reports was doing the banker irreparable harm. This fact complied with the law on the issuance of an interim injunction against the media houses. The opinion of the court was that saving the face of the man was more significant than saving the old news reports.

Defense of Freedom of Press Rejected by Court.

The media houses made an attempt to protect their right to hold the articles online during the hearings. Their argument was that the reports were public record and at the time of writing they were true. They argued that their removal would be a violation of the freedom of the press as well as the right to know of the people. They also claimed that the case was not allowed because of the statute of limitations as the articles were not recent. The defense attempted to make it look like it was censorship of historical facts.

The court however strongly opposed these claims in favor of the privacy of the individual. According to Judge Chandna, the unending damage to an innocent individual cannot be used to defend press freedom. The court made a difference between the publication concerning an open trial and the keeping of records concerning a closed case when the individual was found not guilty. After the individual has been exonerated, the fact they are a criminal turns out to be a lie and a defamation in implication. The court ruled that in such those particular circumstances, the right to privacy prevails.

Another argument that the judge discussed is the issue of the public interest in maintaining such records. In the court, it was noted that it is of no advantage to the community to have false or stale accusations remain in the internet. The right to a forgotten gives a person an opportunity to forget the traumatic experience once they have been proven innocent by the court of law. The decision of the court was that continuing with such information was an infringement to the most basic right of the plaintiff which is to live with dignity. This right forms part and parcel of the Article 21 of the Constitution.