Preserving the record: On the right to be forgotten
The article discusses the tension between the right to be forgotten and the principle of open justice in India. It highlights a recent Delhi High Court ruling that emphasizes the need for digital accuracy in judicial records while balancing privacy rights. The court's decision suggests that simply updating records is insufficient, as it fails to address the accessibility of complete information.
- ▪The Supreme Court of India recognized the right to informational privacy in 2017.
- ▪The Delhi High Court ruled on the 'right to be forgotten' on May 29, illustrating a conflict between privacy and open justice.
- ▪Justice Sachin Datta emphasized the need for digital accuracy in judicial records to ensure public access to complete information.
The Hindu publishes from India and files mainly under world. We currently carry 1,042 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | The Hindu |
| Canonical URL | https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/preserving-the-record-on-the-right-to-be-forgotten/article71057375.ece |
| Publication time | Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:12:58 +0530 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-06-03T18:47:53.439Z |
| Last seen | 2026-06-03T18:47:53.439Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | NdxdPw1O_VH1 |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
On the one hand, constitutional law holds up a principle of open justice that, among other things, allows public scrutiny of courts, facilitates public understanding of the law, and creates a historical record of the administration of justice. On the other, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), the Supreme Court of India recognised the right to informational privacy, including the ability of individuals to exercise some control over personal information about themselves. The Delhi High Court order on May 29 concerning the ‘right to be forgotten’ illustrates how these two principles can sometimes point in opposite directions.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Hindu.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Hindu
