If you were accused of a sexual offence and a court later acquitted you, you can ask that your name be removed from search-engine results that still link you to the case. This is called de-indexing, and Indian courts have increasingly accepted that an acquitted person's right to reputation and privacy can outweigh the public's interest in keeping an old, name-based search result alive. In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, decided on 29 May 2026, the Delhi High Court (Justice Sachin Datta) held that the right to be forgotten is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21, and laid down a framework for de-indexing and masking judicial records where the proceedings ended in acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing.
This article explains, in plain language, what de-indexing means, the legal principles behind it, what you can and cannot ask for, and the practical steps to claim this remedy. It is general information, not legal advice.
What "de-indexing" actually means
De-indexing is not the same as deleting a judgment. The judgment of a court is a public record and generally stays on the court's website and in law reporters. De-indexing means asking a search engine (like Google) to stop showing a particular page in results when someone searches for your name. The page may still exist; it simply stops appearing against your name.
Think of it as the difference between a book staying in the library versus your name being removed from the library's index card. The record survives for legitimate research; your identity stops being broadcast to anyone who casually Googles you.
This matters most in sexual offence allegations because, even after a clean acquittal, the stigma attached to the mere accusation can damage employment, marriage prospects, social standing and mental health for years.
Key takeaway. You are not asking a court to rewrite history. You are asking it to stop your name from being the search key to a proceeding that ended in your favour. Framing the prayer that narrowly, as de-indexing and masking rather than deletion, is what makes these petitions succeed. A prayer for erasure of the judgment itself collides head-on with the open-court principle and will usually be refused.
The remedy is narrower than most people assume, and that narrowness is exactly why it works.
Not deletion
The judgment of a court is a public record and generally stays on the court's website and in law reporters. De-indexing does not touch it.
Your name is the key
The request is that a search engine stop showing a particular page when someone searches for your name. The page may still exist elsewhere.
Why the stigma matters
Even after a clean acquittal in a sexual offence case, the accusation can damage employment, marriage prospects, social standing and mental health for years.
The legal foundation: privacy, reputation and the "right to be forgotten"
Three connected rights support a de-indexing claim in India.
Right to reputation as part of Article 21
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution has been read to include the right to live with dignity and reputation. An acquittal means the law no longer treats you as guilty, so continuing to surface accusation-era results against your name can be argued to injure a constitutionally protected interest.
Right to privacy
The Supreme Court's nine-judge decision of 24 August 2017 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Several High Courts have since drawn on it to recognise a limited right to be forgotten, the idea that a person should not be perpetually defined by a past event that is no longer legally relevant. The Delhi High Court took that reasoning to its logical conclusion in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav, treating informational privacy as the constitutional basis for de-indexing and masking.
Data protection statute
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) gives a data principal, by Section 12, the right to correction, completion, updating and erasure of personal data. As the Act's provisions and rules come into force on a phased timetable, an acquitted person may in time also have a statutory route to seek erasure of personal data that is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. Verify the current commencement status before relying on it, because the enforcement dates for individual rights have been staggered.
Why sexual offence cases are treated differently
Indian law already protects the identity of the victim in sexual offence cases. Publication of a victim's identity is restricted by Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which carries forward the protection formerly in Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and applies to offences under Sections 64 to 71 of the BNS. Courts have reasoned that the accused who is acquitted also deserves protection, because the social damage from a sexual-offence label is uniquely severe and often irreversible.
The logic is one of proportionality: once acquitted, the person is innocent in the eyes of the law, and the harm of perpetual searchability is high while the public-interest value of name-linked results is low.
The earliest widely reported Indian order of this kind was an interim direction of the Delhi High Court (Justice Prathiba M. Singh) in Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India, requiring Google and Indian Kanoon to remove from search results a judgment in an NDPS case in which the petitioner had been acquitted. That order set the pattern the later cases have followed: narrow, interim, and directed at searchability rather than at the record.
What you can ask for vs what you cannot
| You CAN ask for | You generally CANNOT ask for |
|---|---|
| De-indexing of your name from search results linking to the case | Deletion of the court's judgment itself |
| Removal or masking of your name from the public copy of the judgment on a court portal (some courts allow this) | Erasure of the official court record or case file |
| Restraint on news portals re-publishing your name with the old allegation | A guarantee that no one ever finds the information |
| Erasure of personal data held by a private party once it is no longer needed (the DPDP route, as and when operational) | Suppression of an ongoing or pending case before final outcome |
The relevant law and procedure
- Constitution of India, Articles 21 (life, dignity, reputation) and the privacy right read into it, with Article 226 supplying the writ jurisdiction.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The victim-identity protection earlier in IPC Section 228A now sits in Section 72 of the BNS.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If you rely on any specific CrPC provision, use the renumbered BNSS equivalent, for example the inherent powers of the High Court that were in Section 482 CrPC and are now in Section 528 BNSS.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 12, the statutory correction and erasure right, subject to the phased commencement of the Act and its rules.
- Writ jurisdiction. Most de-indexing reliefs are sought by a writ petition before a High Court under Article 226, often impleading the search engine, the hosting website and the relevant State authority.
Because the criminal codes were renumbered when the BNS, BNSS and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam replaced the old laws, always confirm the current section numbers with an advocate before filing.
A de-indexing petition is usually built on four sources of law at once.
Articles 21 and 226
Article 21 supplies the right to life, dignity and reputation, and the privacy right read into it. Article 226 supplies the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Section 72 BNS
Victim identity protection, carrying forward what was Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, and applying to offences under Sections 64 to 71 of the BNS.
Section 528 BNSS
The inherent powers of the High Court, formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Use the renumbered provision rather than the old one.
Section 12 DPDP Act
The statutory right to correction, completion, updating and erasure of personal data, subject to the phased commencement of the Act and its rules.
How the process typically works
- Secure a certified copy of the acquittal order. This is your foundational document, and no platform or court will act on a screenshot.
- Send a written request to the search engine and to the website hosting the page, asking for de-indexing on the strength of the acquittal. Keep the request, the acknowledgment and any refusal, because the refusal is what gives you a cause of action.
- If refused or ignored, file a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions for de-indexing and, where permitted, masking of your name in the public judgment copy.
- The court balances interests, weighing your reputation and privacy against open justice and free speech, and may pass a tailored order.
Courts do not grant blanket erasure. They craft narrow orders, often limited to name-based searches, to balance your dignity against the principle of open courts.
Common mistake. Going straight to the High Court without ever having written to the search engine or the hosting site. The platform request is not a formality; it creates the record of refusal that makes the writ petition maintainable and shows the court you tried the lighter remedy first. It is also, occasionally, all you need, because some takedown requests supported by a certified acquittal order are simply granted.
Practical impact for individuals and businesses
For individuals, de-indexing can restore the ability to get jobs, loans, visas and a normal social life after a wrongful or unproven accusation. For businesses and professionals, where a founder, director or employee was acquitted, de-indexing protects the organisation's reputation and the individual's livelihood. HR teams and background-check vendors should also note that relying on an outdated, accusation-era search result about an acquitted person can itself create legal exposure.
Where this fits and related reading
If you are dealing with an acquittal, an ongoing accusation, or want to protect your reputation after a criminal matter, our criminal defence and prosecution practice explains how we approach these matters. Our companion guide on the right to be forgotten in India covers the wider doctrine, and our note on acquittal for contradictions in prosecution evidence deals with how these acquittals are won in the first place. For the constitutional text and statutes referred to here, you can consult the official repository at indiacode.nic.in.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does de-indexing delete the court judgment?
No. The judgment remains a public record on the court's portal and in law reports. De-indexing only stops the page from appearing in search results against your name.
Is the right to be forgotten settled law in India?
It is now recognised as a facet of informational privacy under Article 21, and the Delhi High Court set out a working framework for de-indexing and masking in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India on 29 May 2026. There is still no single codified statute defining it exhaustively, and outcomes turn on the facts and the court.
Can I get my name removed even if the case is still pending?
Generally no. These remedies usually apply after a final outcome such as an acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing, not while a matter is sub judice.
Who do I file a de-indexing petition against?
Typically the search engine such as Google, the website hosting the page, and, depending on the relief, the relevant court registry or State authority, through a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226.
Will news websites also have to remove my name?
A court may direct restraint on continued name-linked publication, but this is decided case by case, weighing free-speech and press rights against the person's reputation.
How long does de-indexing take?
There is no fixed timeline. A direct request to a platform may be quicker; a contested writ petition can take months. Verify expected timelines with your advocate.
Does de-indexing apply only to sexual offence cases?
No. The principle has been applied notably in sexual offence acquittals because of the severe stigma, but the Delhi High Court's framework extends to judicial records where proceedings ended in acquittal, discharge, closure or quashing, and courts have considered de-indexing in other categories on their facts.
Does the Digital Personal Data Protection Act help?
Potentially. Section 12 of the DPDP Act, 2023 gives a right to correction, completion, updating and erasure of personal data. The Act and its rules are being brought into force in phases, so check the commencement position for that right before treating it as an immediate remedy.
What about the victim's identity?
That is separately protected. Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 restricts disclosure of the identity of a victim of offences under Sections 64 to 71, carrying forward what was Section 228A of the IPC. Nothing in a de-indexing petition should compromise that protection.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different; please consult a qualified advocate about your specific matter.
