iKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd — the company behind Indian Kanoon — has filed an appeal before a division bench of the Delhi High Court challenging a single-bench ruling that directed the platform to disable name-based search of judicial records.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, took up the appeal on July 14, 2026, and has listed the matter for the next hearing on July 21, 2026, according to LiveLaw.
Background: How We Got Here
The challenge stems from a 144-page judgment delivered on May 29, 2026 by Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court, which consolidated a batch of over 35 writ petitions — some pending since 2016.
The underlying batch is titled Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, bearing citation 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4491. Indian Kanoon’s appeal before the division bench is captioned iKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd v. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav & Ors.
- The earliest writ petitions in the batch were filed in 2016, with the consolidated judgment arriving a decade later on May 29, 2026, per The Federal and SCC Online.
- Petitioners primarily sought de-indexing of their names from online judicial records in cases ending in acquittal, settlement, discharge, or cases of a purely private nature.
- Advocate Naman Gupta appeared for Indian Kanoon before the division bench on July 14 and sought a short date, noting lawyers were abstaining from work that day, according to LiveLaw.
The Ruling — Key Findings
Justice Sachin Datta’s single-bench judgment held that the right to be forgotten is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21, evolving a framework for de-indexing and masking of personal information from online judicial records, as reported by SCC Online and Verdictum.
The order directed Google and other search engines to de-index relevant records from name-based search results, and specifically directed Indian Kanoon to restrict name-based search functionality for covered judgments and orders within two weeks of the ruling.
Justice Datta stated: “Indian Kanoon is directed to restrict name-based search functionality within its platform in respect of the records of the petitioners identified above.”
Critically, the judgment did not order erasure of the underlying records. As Justice Datta clarified: “The judgment remains accessible by case number, citation, court, date, and subject matter.”
The Union of India through MeitY was separately directed to ensure compliance by intermediaries, per SCC Online. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) as the constitutional anchor for the right to informational privacy.
The single bench also noted that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not extend a comprehensive right to be forgotten to court records, leaving a legislative gap that the court addressed through constitutional interpretation, according to The Federal.
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — which deals with government blocking powers — was held not applicable to right to be forgotten petitions, as reported by Medianama. The court instead treated Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as the operative mechanism for compliance by intermediaries.
Reactions & What’s Next
Indian Kanoon contends the ruling unduly curtails the principles of open justice and the public’s right to access judicial records, according to LiveLaw.
The platform further argues the judgment introduces vague and undefined standards — phrases such as “no longer relevant” and “legitimate public purpose” — which it says risk enabling arbitrary censorship of court records, as reported by LiveLaw.
Indian Kanoon also argues that name-based searches are integral to legal research relied upon by lawyers, litigants, researchers, students, and judges alike. The platform contends that restricting this functionality infringes its freedom to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, according to LiveLaw.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia is scheduled to hear the matter next on July 21, 2026, per LiveLaw. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court is separately examining the broader question of whether entire judgments can be ordered to be taken down from Indian Kanoon.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
What did the Delhi High Court’s May 29, 2026 judgment order Indian Kanoon to do?
Justice Sachin Datta’s 144-page judgment directed Indian Kanoon to disable name-based search functionality for judicial records covered by the petitions — primarily cases ending in acquittal, settlement, or discharge. Records remain accessible via case number, citation, court, and date, but not through a search by the individual’s name.
Who is hearing Indian Kanoon’s appeal and when is the next date?
The appeal filed by iKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd is being heard by a division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. The matter was taken up on July 14, 2026, and the next hearing is listed for July 21, 2026, according to LiveLaw.
What constitutional provisions is Indian Kanoon invoking in its appeal?
Indian Kanoon is primarily relying on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution — the right to freely carry on trade or business — arguing that restricting name-based search functionality infringes its core commercial and informational function. It also invokes the open justice principle and the public’s right to access judicial records, per LiveLaw.
Does India have a statutory right to be forgotten?
No. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not provide a comprehensive statutory right to be forgotten covering court records. The Delhi High Court’s May 2026 judgment addressed this gap by grounding the right in the constitutional right to informational privacy under Article 21, as reported by The Federal and SCC Online.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
