Delhi HC Upholds Right to Be Forgotten, Orders De-Indexing of News Articles [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has affirmed an interim injunction requiring the de-indexing and de-referencing of online news articles concerning a professional banker who was subsequently discharged from criminal proceedings. The judgment, delivered on December 18, 2025, by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha in the case of IE Online Media Services Private Limited v. & Ors., centred on the fundamental conflict between the media’s freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and an individual’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ultimately found “no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court calling for interference by this Court.”

The plaintiff, a professional banker with an extensive career, initiated the suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions as well as damages after his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in August 2023 led to the publication of numerous news reports. The Court noted that although the “impugned news reports were published at different points of time, they continued to remain accessible on digital platforms and search engines, thereby perpetuating an impression of guilt against him.” Crucially, the jurisdictional court “discharged the plaintiff, finding that no prima facie case had been made out and that there was no legally admissible evidence linking the plaintiff to the alleged offence, vide order dated 17.08.2024.” Despite this exoneration, the articles continued to persist online, causing significant harm to his “reputation, dignity, and professional prospects.”

IE Online Media Services Private Limited, the appellant, challenged the interim order on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a one-year period for actions in libel. The appellant contended that “mere continued availability of the archived content does not give rise to a continuing cause of action.” However, the Court rejected this argument, noting the distinct nature of the reliefs sought. It observed that “the plaint contains two distinct and independent sets of prayers, one founded on defamation and the other on the plaintiff’s right to privacy, dignity, and the right to be forgotten.” The Court further noted: “It is evident from the records that the plaintiff approached the civil court shortly after the culmination of the criminal proceedings in his favour. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention of defendant no. 2 that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act.”

On the merits of balancing competing constitutional rights, the High Court relied on precedent, stating that “while the media enjoys freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, such right is not absolute and stands correspondingly delimited by the right of an individual to dignity and reputation traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution.” The Court found that the trial court’s order was appropriately circumscribed, observing: “The impugned order is narrowly tailored and confined to the continued availability and circulation of specific articles relating to the plaintiff after the criminal proceedings against him culminated in exoneration.” The judgment further reasoned that “while reporting of arrests and investigations may serve public interest at the relevant time, the perpetual digital availability of such material, even after the factual foundation has ceased to exist, raises serious concerns of enduring reputational harm and stigma.”

Addressing the appellant’s submission that merely adding an update to the articles would suffice, the Court held: “The submission by the learned counsel for defendant no. 2 that incorporation of updates reflecting the plaintiff’s discharge sufficiently balances reputational concerns cannot be accepted at this stage.” It agreed with the trial court’s view that “the mere addition of a brief clarification at the bottom of the alleged offending articles does not necessarily neutralise the dominant narrative or the continuing impact of the original publication.” The Court emphasised that the continued online availability of the original reports “perpetuates a stigma and violates the plaintiff’s right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

While assessing the balance of convenience, the Court sided with the plaintiff, holding that “the balancing exercise is not to be reduced to a comparison of inconvenience between the litigating parties alone, but must be viewed through the prism of constitutional proportionality.” It further concluded that “the inconvenience, if any, to defendant no. 2 is limited and reversible, whereas the prejudice to the plaintiff’s dignity, reputation, and professional life is immediate and irreparable.” The Court also noted that even by the defendant’s own submission that the content was “ARCHIVAL” or “PREMIUM” and “not accessible to any ordinary reader,” the interim relief granted “will in no way affect their interest.”

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the interim relief, concluding that the trial court had exercised its discretion appropriately after weighing the competing constitutional rights.

Case Details:

Case Title:
IE ONLINE MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. & ORS.

Case Number:
FAO 346/2025, CM APPLs. 78829/2025 & 78831/2025

Court:
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

Judgment Pronounced on:
18.12.2025

Advocates for Appellant:
Mr. Nachiket Joshi and Ms. Chanan Parwani

Advocates for Respondents:
Mr. Trideep P., Senior Advocate, with
Ms. S. Singh, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Jain, Advocate
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Akshit Mago, Advocate
Ms. E. Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Apar Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Avanti Deshpande, Advocate
Mr. Naman Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Indumugi C., Advocate
Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Advocate
Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Advocate
Ms. Aishwarya Debadarshini, Advocate
Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocate
Mr. Manu Seth, Advocate

[Read Judgment]