Utilizziamo cookie tecnici per personalizzare il sito web e offrire all’utente un servizio di maggior valore. Chiudendo il banner e continuando con la navigazione verranno installati nel Suo dispositivo i cookie tecnici necessari ai fini della navigazione nel Sito. L’installazione dei cookie tecnici non richiede alcun consenso da parte Sua. Ulteriori informazioni sono contenute nella nostra Cookie Policy.



The Right to be Forgotten – not a forgotten right in India, but not yet enforced

PrintMailRate-it
published on 26 January 2021 | reading time approx. 4 minutes

India is known to be a high-tech country that is ahead of European countries in many ways when it comes to digitalisation and IT. Nevertheless, India lags behind Europe in the area of data protection. This shall change with the introduction of the Data Protection Bill, 2018 but until then, data protection regulations are rather weak. Still, recently the Orissa High Court reaffirmed the right to be forgotten, which is currently not covered in applicable data protection laws in India. This article will take a closer look at the right to be forgotten in India and it is importance in the times of Tiktok, Facebook, Instagram and co.


1. Legalisation

Currently, India has not yet enacted any specific legislations on data protection. In India, these laws are governed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) and Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (“the Rules”). Further, the Indian Government is in the process of passing and implementing the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (“PDP Bill”) which is set to model similar lines along the European General Data Protection Regulations, 2016 (“GDPR”).

With Sec. 27 of the PDP Bill, the right to be forgotten shall be introduced for the very first time in India. As per this Section, every data principal shall have the right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure of personal data by a data fiduciary, when the disclosure of data has met one of the following conditions:
  • It has served the purpose for which it was made or is no longer necessary;
  • was made on the basis of consent and such consent has since been withdrawn; or
  • was made contrary to the provisions of this Act or any other law inforce.
The right can be exercised by the data principal through an application directly to the Adjudicating Officer, who will then determines the applicability of the aforesaid conditions and whether the rights and interests of the data principal in preventing or restricting the continued disclosure of personal data override the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to information of any citizen. For this, the Adjudicating Officer shall to take into consideration i) the sensitivity of the personal data; ii) the scale of disclosure and the degree of accessibility sought to be restricted or prevented; iii) the role of the data principal in public life; iv) the relevance of the personal data to the public; and v) the nature of the disclosure and of the activities of the data fiduciary, particularly whether the data fiduciary systematically facilitates access to personal data and whether the activities would be significantly impeded if disclosures of the relevant nature were to be restricted or prevented. It is not required for the data principal to first approach the data fiduciary.

Further, it is important to note that the PDP Bill does cover separately the right of erasure unlike the GDPR. As per Sec. 18 of the PDP Bill, a right of erasure exists, in case the personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was processed. For this, the data principal can issue a request to the data fiduciary, which the data fiduciary can review and eventually reject the applicable in writing while giving adequate justification. Where the data principal is not satisfied with the justification provided by the data fiduciary, the data principal may require that the data fiduciary take reasonable steps to indicate, alongside the relevant personal data, that the same is disputed.

2. Importance and Background of the Orissa High Court decision

Even though Sec. 27 of the PDP Bill is yet to become effective, the right to be forgotten was recently reaffirmed on 23rd November 2020 by the Orissa High Court (“the Court”) in the matter of Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul v. State of Odisha.

In this case, the Petitioner is alleged to have raped a woman and uploaded photos and videos of this act on Facebook after blackmailing her. Only after police intervention, the Petitioner deleted the content from Facebook. The bail application of the Petitioner was dismissed by the Court. Further, the Court made notes on the importance of a right to be forgotten, which still has to be implemented in India. The rights of a victim to get uploaded photos or videos erased from an internet platform such facebook still remain unaddressed for want of appropriate legislation, even though keeping such photos and videos on social media platform without the consent of a woman is a direct affront on the victims modesty and on the right to privacy. Currently the victims only have the option to seek appropriate orders to protect the victim's fundamental right to privacy and have offensive posts erased from a public platform.

This decision of the Orissa High Court shows the importance to implement a right to be forgotten, which can arise in very delicate cases such this one and that even authorities such as Courts whish the same to be implemented eventually. With the introduction of the right to be forgotten, everyone will have a right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure of personal data and therefore will have more rights towards data privacy.

3. Implications for companies

Introducing the right to be forgotten is the right step towards data privacy. To ensure the same, Indian companies should be aware that the same exist and should implement appropriate provisions in their data privacy policies. Even though the application towards the right to be forgotten has to be filed with the Adjudicating Officer and not directly with the data fiduciary, every company should be able to proceed with the deletion of data in the prescribed timeframe and manner. 

Further, it is important to note that this right to be forgotten will not be applicable to customers but also to employees of a company. Therefore, every company should have appropriate provisions in place to delete data of ex-employees as and when it is under other statutory laws not required to store the same.

CONTACT

Contact Person Picture

Ursula Hoffmann

Senior Consultant

+91 22 6266 0800

Invia richiesta

RÖDL & PARTNER INDIA

​Discover more about our offices in India. Read more »

DATA PROTECTION BITES


Our newsletter aims at collecting updates, news and insights on data protection matters worldwide, with a special focus on the GDPR. 
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Deutschland Weltweit Search Menu