On 29 May 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page judgment recognising the Right to be Forgotten as an integral facet of informational privacy under Article 21 and laying down a workable framework for de-indexing judicial records.
A practitioner's primer on the structural design of India's first comprehensive data-protection statute — lawful basis, data-fiduciary obligations, the Significant Data Fiduciary tier, data-principal rights, cross-border transfers, exemptions, the Data Protection Board, the Schedule's ₹250 crore penalty cap, and the staged repeal of Section 43A IT Act and the SPDI Rules 2011. Written as the foundational reference for any DPDP question.
On 12 April 2021, a single judge of the Delhi High Court granted interim de-indexing of news reports of a prosecution that had ended in acquittal, applying the right to be forgotten under Article 21.
A 2016 Delhi High Court division bench refused to read constitutional restraints into a click-wrap consent transaction but moulded transitional relief — and the case has been pending before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ever since.
On 27 October 2021, a three-judge bench refused the Union's national-security plea and constituted an expert committee to investigate the Pegasus spyware allegations against Indian citizens.
On 23 November 2020, the Orissa High Court refused bail and articulated India's first judicial recognition of the right to be forgotten for survivors of sexual offences.
On 26 September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench held by 4:1 that the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was constitutionally valid in substantial part, that its passage as a Money Bill was within Parliament's competence, and that Section 7 — the mandatory linking of Aadhaar with benefits — was sustainable. Section 57 — permitting private entities to seek Aadhaar authentication — and parts of Section 33(2) were struck down. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented entirely. A digest of the judgment, the Money Bill question, and the doctrinal arc from the 9-judge privacy ruling through this 5-judge substantive engagement.
Six months into the staged rollout of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — and the DPDP Rules notified by MeitY on 13 November 2025 — the practitioner architecture is now substantially visible. Phase I (the Data Protection Board's establishment) is live; Phase II (the consent-manager regime) takes effect on 14 November 2026; Phase III (the compliance obligations and the ₹250 crore penalty ceiling) takes effect on 14 May 2027. A practitioner read on where data fiduciaries should be at the six-month mark and what the remaining eighteen months require.
On 24 August 2017, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held — without dissent, in 547 pages across six opinions — that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) in significant part, and supplied the three-prong proportionality test for state action affecting privacy. A close digest.
India's first comprehensive data-protection framework is now operational, but in a staged sequence: Consent Manager rules effective November 2026; substantive Significant Data Fiduciary obligations effective May 2027. A practitioner's read on the architecture, the timeline, and the compliance work that has just become urgent for law firms and for the entities they advise.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a conviction recorded against a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act cannot operate as a disqualification for appointment to government or public services. The reasoning engages the rehabilitation-and-reintegration principle that anchors the entire JJ Act framework, and the constitutional protection of privacy and dignity that follows the *Puttaswamy* line. A digest of the doctrinal architecture, the bench's directions, and its relationship with the broader 'right to be forgotten' jurisprudence.