Skip to main content
Home/DPDP Dictionary/Right to Be Forgotten
DPDP Dictionary · Data Principal rights & duties

Right to Be Forgotten

A popular name for a person’s right to have data about them deleted. The DPDP Act frames it as a right to erasure.

Data Principal rights & dutiesReviewed October 2026
In simple words

This is the popular name for a person's right to have information about them removed. In the DPDP Act it appears as the right to erasure, with narrower scope than the name suggests.

Meaning of Right to Be Forgotten

The Act does not use the phrase "right to be forgotten". The closest rights are the right to erasure and the duty to erase when consent is withdrawn or the purpose is served.

The phrase became widely known after a 2014 European court ruling on search engines, and the GDPR later gave it a statutory form in Article 17 as the right to erasure. People use it loosely to mean anything from deleting an account to removing old news from search results. The DPDP Act does not use the phrase. It speaks of the right to erasure in Section 12 and the duty to erase in Section 8(7).

Under Section 12(3) an individual can ask a fiduciary she gave consent to for erasure of her personal data, and the fiduciary must comply unless retention is necessary for the specified purpose or for legal compliance. That is a right against the organisation that holds the data. It is not a general power to require publishers, search engines or third parties to remove lawful information about her from the public domain.

Indian constitutional law has dealt with similar claims. The Puttaswamy decision of 2017 recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, and several High Courts have considered requests to remove judgments or records from search results, balancing privacy against free speech and the public's right to information. The outcomes have varied with the facts, so a person seeking removal from public websites should not assume the DPDP Act answers the question.

Compared with GDPR, the Indian provision is narrower in some respects. It is tied to consent-based processing, it expressly yields to legal retention and the stated purpose, and it has no separate duty to tell other controllers to erase links or copies, though the fiduciary must make its own processors erase under Section 8(1). Sector rules such as record retention for banks or hospitals continue to apply.

Examples of Right to Be Forgotten

Quick example

A user asks a platform to remove her old account data. Her request is handled under the right to erasure.

Social platform

A user asks to be forgotten after leaving. The platform deletes her profile, messages and ad profile, and removes her public posts, but explains that screenshots posted by other users are theirs to remove.

News portal

A person asks a regional news site to remove a ten-year-old report about a settled dispute. The editor weighs public interest and the individual's privacy, and treats it as a content decision, not a Section 12 request, since the article is lawful journalism.

Job portal

A candidate asks a job site to forget her. The portal erases her CV, saved searches and employer messages, and informs the recruiters it shared data with that she has withdrawn.

Why Right to Be Forgotten matters

The distinction matters for expectations. A user may believe the Act lets her wipe an embarrassing article or a court order from the internet, then feel let down. Organisations that explain clearly what the Indian right covers, and what it does not, reduce disputes and false complaints.

For fiduciaries, treating every request as a plain erasure request, and doing it well, is the safest approach. The same operational steps cover requests worded as being forgotten, with penalties for failure falling under the residual limit of up to ₹50 crore.

How it works in practice

  1. 1Train front-line staff to recognise requests phrased as being forgotten or removed, and route them to the same erasure workflow that handles Section 12 requests.
  2. 2Ask the person what she wants: deletion of her account data, removal from marketing lists, or removal of content she has posted publicly, as these may be handled differently.
  3. 3For user-generated content or public posts, check whether your platform made it public on her instruction. Where she posted it, removal on request is usually appropriate and easy to honour.
  4. 4If the request is about third-party content, explain what you can do, such as reviewing it under your content policy, and what you cannot, and point her to the appropriate remedy or authority.
  5. 5Document the outcome in plain language, listing deletions, exceptions and the law relied on, so the reply stands up if challenged.

Where it appears in the DPDP Act and Rules

Common mistakes to avoid

Telling people the Indian law has no such right at all. Erasure exists; only the label is different.

Promising removal from the whole internet. A fiduciary can only erase what it controls.

Copying GDPR timelines and exceptions. Use Rule 14 and Section 12 for Indian requests.

Compliance tips

  • Use plain wording on your privacy page that connects the popular phrase to the erasure process.

  • Keep separate procedures for personal-data erasure and content-removal requests, and a clear owner for each.

  • Log reasoned refusals so you can show the Board how a decision was made.

Common questions about Right to Be Forgotten

Does India have a right to be forgotten?

The DPDP Act does not use the phrase, but Section 12 gives a right to erasure of personal data processed with consent, subject to the specified purpose and legal retention. Courts have separately considered removal of public content case by case, balancing privacy and free speech.

Can I make Google remove my old news article under the DPDP Act?

Not automatically. Section 12 operates against a fiduciary holding your data on the basis of your consent. Removal of lawful public content involves other considerations, and outcomes in courts have depended on the facts. Take legal advice before relying on the Act for this purpose.

Is the Indian right the same as GDPR Article 17?

No. Article 17 is broader in its grounds and includes duties to inform other controllers. The Indian right is tied to consent-based processing, the specified purpose and legal retention, though Section 8(7) separately requires erasure when consent is withdrawn.

More in Data Principal rights & duties

General information, not legal advice. Check the Act, the Rules and any notifications for your situation.

Keep learning