white_paper_on_data_protection_in_india_171127_final_v2

CHAPTER 10: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RIGHTS 3- RIGHT TO BE
10.1 Introduction
FORGOTTEN
The right to be forgotten in the digital sphere refers to the right of individuals to request data
controllers to erase any data about them from their systems. 630 The principal driver behind the
idea of the right to be forgotten is the massive expansion in the availability and accessibility
of information associated with the digital world of the Internet. 631
It is quite common for Internet users to reveal personal information they later regret, 632 or to
have information posted about them that they wished had remained secret. 633 Information
posted on the Internet is never truly forgotten. Once personal data enters the online
ecosystem, the original purpose behind disclosure becomes irrelevant. 634 When allowed to
flow freely, data is open to interpretation and use (or misuse) completely divorced from their
original context. 635 Often, the very fact of certain information being online may itself cause
considerable embarrassment and loss of reputation for an individual. For example, in the
Google Spain Case, 636 an old article concerning an attachment and garnishment action against
a Spanish individual (that was later resolved) was the first link when anyone ran an online
search of this individual‘s name which allegedly resulted in his loss of reputation.
The Indian judiciary through the Karnataka High Court in Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar
General 637 has recognised the right to be forgotten and safeguarded the same in sensitive
cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the
modesty and reputation of the person concerned, in particular. Further, the importance of a
right to be forgotten was further emphasised by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy. 638 The
630 Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, ‗Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age‘ (Princeton University Press,
2011).
631 Frank La Rue, ‗Report of the Human Rights Council‘s Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection
of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression‘, 19, (A/HRC/17/27) (16 May 2011), available at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, (last accessed 28 October
2017).
632 Snyder v. Millersville University No. 07-1660, (2008) WL 5093140; See Yang Wang et al., ‗I regretted the
minute I pressed share: A Qualitative Study of Regrets on Facebook‘, Symposium on Usable Privacy and
Security, Pittsburgh, (July 20–22, 2011), available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.207.8881, (last accessed 28
October 2017).
633 Balsley v. LFP, Inc No. 1:08 CV 491, (2011) WL 1298i80.
634 See Charles J. Sykes, ‗The End of Privacy‘ 221 (1999, Macmillan); Jonathan Zittrain, ‗The Future of the
Internet-and How to Stop It‘ (Yale University Press, 2008); Jeffrey Rosen, ‗The Web Means the End of
Forgetting‘, New York Times Magazine (21 July 2010), available
at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?pagewanted=all, (last accessed 25 October
2017).
635 James Boyle, ‗Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society‘
(Harvard University Press, 1996); Helen Nissenbaum, ‗Privacy in Context-Technology, Policy, and the Integrity
of Social Life‘, 36, (Stanford University Press, 2010).
636 Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja
González, Case C131/12, (2014), European Court of Justice.
637 Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar General, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424.
638 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCALE 1.
137