What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may confuse 'Right to be Forgotten' with 'Right to Erasure' under GDPR, or swap Article 21 with Article 19 (Freedom of Speech). They may also ask about the difference between masking (identity hidden in judgment) and de-indexing (removed from search results) - these are often interchanged in options.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 24 of 29

Bombay HC Masks Petitioner Identity Under Right to Be Forgotten: Article 21 Privacy vs Public Access

Q: Under which Article of the Indian Constitution can a person approach a High Court to seek the 'Right to be Forgotten'?

Article 226, While the right to privacy is protected under Article 21, the remedy to approach a High Court for enforcement of fundamental rights (including the Right to be Forgotten) is provided under Article 226. Article 32 is for the Supreme Court. Article 14 deals with equality.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the 'Right to be Forgotten' in India: 1. It is explicitly recognized as a fundamental right under a specific statute passed by Parliament. 2. Courts have recognized it as part of the right to privacy under Article 21, following the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment. 3. Relief is generally refused in cases involving convictions for offences against women or children. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 2 and 3, Statement 1 is incorrect because India currently lacks a specific law governing the Right to be Forgotten. Statement 2 is correct as courts have recognized it under Article 21 via the Puttaswamy judgment. Statement 3 is correct as per the article - relief is refused where public interest outweighs privacy, especially for convictions against women/children.

Q: In the recent Nagpur bench ruling on the Right to be Forgotten, what was the profession of the petitioner whose identity was ordered to be masked?

Environment and climate change consultant, The article specifies that the petitioner was a 37-year-old environment and climate change consultant whose criminal proceedings had been quashed after the parties settled the dispute. This detail could be used in a factual prelims question.

Q: What is the primary reason courts may refuse to grant the 'Right to be Forgotten' despite an individual's request?

The public interest in continued disclosure outweighs the individual's right to privacy, The article clearly states that the right to be forgotten is not absolute and courts can refuse relief where public interest outweighs an individual's privacy. This includes cases involving convictions for offences against women/children, breaches of public trust, or public conduct of public figures.

Q: What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: Bombay HC (Nagpur bench) ruling on Right to be Forgotten - July 2026 2. Target this Legal Point: Article 21 (Right to Privacy) via K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and remedy under Article 226 3. Target this Concept: Three types of relief - Masking, De-indexing, Complete removal

Polity Social IssuesHIGH

Target:MPSCUPSC GS-IISSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains MediumStatic GK Link

17 Jul 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:Article 21Article 226K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)Nagpur bench Bombay HCMaskingDe-indexing

Bodies:Bombay High CourtDelhi High CourtKerala High CourtSupreme Court of India

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Nagpur bench of Bombay HC directs masking of petitioner's identity after criminal proceedings quashed, citing right to privacy under Article 21.

2.India has no specific law on 'Right to be Forgotten', but courts (Delhi, Bombay, Kerala HCs) recognize it on a case-by-case basis under Article 226.

3.Courts balance public interest vs. individual privacy; relief is generally refused for convictions involving women/children or public figures.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · Medium

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has reinforced the 'Right to be Forgotten' by ordering the masking of a petitioner's identity after criminal proceedings were quashed. Though India lacks a specific law, courts are recognizing this right under Article 21 (Right to Privacy), making this a critical topic for UPSC Polity and Governance papers.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Constitutional BasisArticle 21 (Right to Privacy) via K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)

Remedy Invoked UnderArticle 226 (High Court writ jurisdiction)

Relief TypesMasking, De-indexing, Complete removal

Recent CaseNagpur bench, Bombay HC (July 2026)

1-Minute Revision

›Constitutional Basis: Article 21 (Right to Privacy) via K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)
›Remedy Invoked Under: Article 226 (High Court writ jurisdiction)
›Target this Data: Bombay HC (Nagpur bench) ruling on Right to be Forgotten - July 2026
›Target this Legal Point: Article 21 (Right to Privacy) via K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and remedy under Article 226
›Target this Concept: Three types of relief - Masking, De-indexing, Complete removal

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Right to be Forgotten

A person can seek removal/masking of personal info online when it no longer serves public purpose and harms privacy.

📄

No Specific Law in India

Courts decide case-by-case under Article 21 and Article 226; no comprehensive statutory framework exists yet.

🔍

Masking vs De-indexing

Masking hides identity in judgment; de-indexing removes it from search results. Both can be ordered by High Courts.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The 'Right to be Forgotten' originated in the EU's GDPR and is recognized by Indian courts as an extension of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, following the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment. The Nagpur bench of Bombay HC recently applied this to mask the identity of an environment consultant whose criminal case was quashed.

Core Analysis & Implications

The ruling highlights the tension between open justice (public access to court records) and individual privacy. Courts grant three types of relief: masking (redacting name), de-indexing (removing from search engines), or complete removal. Each case is assessed independently, with factors like nature of info, public interest, and the person's role (public figure vs private citizen) weighed carefully.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

While High Courts have stepped in, the absence of a specific law creates inconsistency. The Personal Data Protection Bill (or its successor) may codify this right. For now, litigants must approach High Courts under Article 226, making this a developing area of law that could see more clarity through future legislation or a Supreme Court pronouncement.

Key Facts at a Glance

Constitutional BasisArticle 21 (Right to Privacy) via K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)

Remedy Invoked UnderArticle 226 (High Court writ jurisdiction)

Relief TypesMasking, De-indexing, Complete removal

Recent CaseNagpur bench, Bombay HC (July 2026)

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Under which Article of the Indian Constitution can a person approach a High Court to seek the 'Right to be Forgotten'?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the 'Right to be Forgotten' in India:

1. It is explicitly recognized as a fundamental right under a specific statute passed by Parliament.

2. Courts have recognized it as part of the right to privacy under Article 21, following the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment.

3. Relief is generally refused in cases involving convictions for offences against women or children.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

In the recent Nagpur bench ruling on the Right to be Forgotten, what was the profession of the petitioner whose identity was ordered to be masked?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

What is the primary reason courts may refuse to grant the 'Right to be Forgotten' despite an individual's request?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousPM Modi Flags Off India's First 10-Coach Hydrogen Train on Jind-Sonipat Route Next India’s GDP Outlook: Nominal Growth May Rise to 7.5% as Real Growth Slows to 6.4%-6.8%

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Health Ministry Backs Same-Sex Partners' Medical Decision Rights Under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Union Health Ministry has told the Delhi High Court that excluding same-sex partners from making medical decisions for each other solely based on sexual orientation is unethical. This marks a significant administrative shift, though the government maintains that 'spouse' under Indian marriage laws only applies to heterosexual couples, creating a nuanced legal landscape for exam aspirants.

Polity Current Affairs

Delhi HC Releases 2 Life Convicts Citing Chekhov; SRB Rejection 'Arbitrary' Under Article 21

The Delhi High Court ordered the release of two life-term convicts, holding that prolonged imprisonment 'kills slowly' and that Sentence Review Boards cannot reject early release pleas based on stereotyped reasoning. The judgment reinforces Article 21 rights and sets important guidelines for evaluating post-conviction conduct.

Polity Current Affairs

Bombay HC Rules Community Health Volunteers Entitled to Minimum Wage Under 1948 Act

The Bombay High Court has ruled that community health volunteers working for the BMC are entitled to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, rejecting the argument that their honorarium exempts them. This judgment strengthens labour rights for contractual and volunteer workers, an important topic for UPSC labour jurisprudence and social security.

Polity Current Affairs

Bombay HC Directs Maharashtra to Regularise Over 450 Contractual Medical Staff, Flags Ad-Hocism in Public Employment

The Bombay High Court has directed Maharashtra to end long-term contractual hiring, specifically ordering the Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation to regularise over 450 medical officers and paramedical staff who served 8–11 years on contract. The Court flagged 'ad-hocism' in public employment and linked it to the state's unemployment crisis, making this a landmark ruling for contractual workers' rights in government services.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules NCSC Cannot Issue Binding Directions Under Article 338

The Supreme Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has only recommendatory and advisory powers under Article 338, not adjudicatory powers. It cannot issue binding orders in service disputes. This ruling sets boundaries for constitutional commissions under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Directs Uniform Policy for Demolition & Rehabilitation of Unauthorised Homes Under Article 21

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state's power to demolish unauthorised constructions must be balanced with the duty to rehabilitate affected families, invoking Article 21 (right to dignity, shelter, livelihood). The court directed the Union and State governments to consider formulating a uniform demolition and rehabilitation policy.

Polity Current Affairs

Maharashtra Panel Recommends BNS Amendment for Defamatory Social Media Posts; Shreya Singhal Precedent

A Maharashtra government panel has recommended amending the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to specifically criminalize defamatory social media posts, reviving the spirit of the now-struck-down Section 66A of the IT Act. This raises critical constitutional questions about balancing free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with the right to reputation (Article 21), especially after the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) for vagueness and overbreadth. For exam aspirants, understanding the legal framework of defamation, the concept of reasonable restrictions, and the proportionality standard is crucial.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Forms HPEC to Probe NEET-UG Protest Violence; Collectors in 8 States/UTs Empowered for CAA Citizenship

A day of major structural developments: The Supreme Court constituted a high-powered committee (HPEC) to investigate police violence during NEET-UG protests, while the MHA empowered District Collectors in 8 States/UTs to process CAA citizenship applications, bypassing earlier multi-agency committees. Additionally, a 9-judge SC bench overruled the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply judgment on 'industry' definition under the new labour codes, fundamentally altering worker rights.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Bombay HC Masks Petitioner Identity Under Right to Be Forgotten: Article 21 Privacy vs Public Access

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Right to be Forgotten

No Specific Law in India

Masking vs De-indexing

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance