Usually a court case cannot be deleted from the internet, but it can often be de-indexed so that it no longer appears when someone searches your name. Indian courts treat judgments as public records, so the realistic goal is to break the link between your name and the judgment on Google and on legal databases such as Indian Kanoon, while the record itself stays with the court.
Can a court case be removed from Google?
This guide reflects the position as of 10 September 2026. On 29 May 2026 a single judge of the Delhi High Court set out the first detailed framework for de-indexing judicial records, and that framework is now under appeal before a Division Bench, with the next hearing listed for 16 September 2026. The Supreme Court is separately deciding whether the right to be forgotten reaches court records at all. Treat what follows as law in motion, and check for developments after those hearings before you act.
Why do judgments show up on Google and Indian Kanoon?
Most High Courts and many district courts publish their judgments and orders online. Legal databases such as Indian Kanoon republish them, and section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act 1957 expressly permits the reproduction of any judgment or order unless the court that passed it prohibits publication. Because these databases rank well, a judgment that names you can appear near the top of a search for your name, sometimes above your own website or professional profiles.
It helps to separate three layers. The record is the judgment held by the court. The copies are the versions on databases and other websites. The index is the list of pages Google will show for a search. Each layer is controlled by a different party and answers to a different remedy: the court for masking the record, the database for its copy, and Google for its results. Most failed attempts are aimed at the wrong layer.
Indian Kanoon's published policy is that it will not remove or modify a public document without an order of a competent court. It relies on the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which treated publication based on court records as falling outside the right to privacy.
What did the Delhi High Court decide on 29 May 2026?
In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 1021/2016 and connected matters, 2026:DHC:4891), Justice Sachin Datta decided a batch of about forty petitions from people whose names surfaced in judgments, orders and related news reports. The court held that the right to be forgotten is a facet of informational privacy under Article 21, and that it can be reconciled with open justice by restricting how records are found rather than by removing them.
The deciding question was whether the legal or social foundation of the proceedings had been extinguished, for example by acquittal, discharge, quashing, settlement or the death of the accused. Where it had, the court found that the public interest in keeping the case searchable by a party's name falls away sharply. It also held writ petitions maintainable against search engines, relying on Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) for enforcing Article 21 against private entities where no effective alternative remedy exists.
The directions were specific. Google and other search engines were to de-index the content from name-based results, in the manner of a direction under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021. Indian Kanoon was to restrict name-based search for the identified records while keeping the judgments reachable by case number, citation, court and date. De-indexing does not delete the record; it removes the name-based route to it.
Petitioners who succeeded were left at liberty to ask the court that passed each original judgment to mask their names. The relief applied only to the records identified in those petitions. Anyone else must still make their own request, whether to a database, to Google or to a court, although the framework now gives those requests a recognised structure.
RepuLex Legal Services
Who qualifies for de-indexing, and who does not?
Relief under the current framework turns on outcome, status and public interest, not on embarrassment. The categories come from the 29 May 2026 judgment and Indian Kanoon's published policy, and the table shows likely outcomes, not guarantees: a court will still weigh the facts of each case, including how much time has passed and whether the person holds a public role.
Two practical points follow. A pending case is almost never a candidate, because the reason for publication still exists, and the Kerala High Court has said the same about proceedings of recent origin. A conviction is not erased by the passage of time alone: the court refused relief where a serious conviction retained continuing relevance, so anyone with a conviction on record should expect a fact-specific argument rather than an automatic result.
| Situation | Likely outcome under the current framework |
|---|---|
| Acquitted or discharged | Strong case for name-based de-indexing; relief was granted even after acquittal on serious charges |
| FIR quashed after a settlement | Strong case; relief was granted in the 29 May batch |
| Matrimonial proceedings concluded | Strong case; relief was granted where no continuing public interest remained |
| Offence compounded | Relief granted, including a cheque-bounce conviction compounded through mediation |
| Proceedings abated on the death of the accused | Relief granted |
| Named incidentally, or a purely private matter | Relief granted where no public interest remained |
| Victim of a sexual offence | Identity protection is a statutory right under section 72 BNS (formerly section 228A IPC); relief granted immediately |
| Case still pending | Unlikely; the basis for publication still exists |
| Convicted of a serious offence of continuing relevance | Refused |
| Public figure, conduct in the public domain | Refused |
| Serious conviction by a foreign court | Refused |
Where does the law stand now? The Indian Kanoon appeals and the Supreme Court
Indian Kanoon has appealed the 29 May judgment through a batch of Letters Patent Appeals now before a Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar. No interim stay has been reported. On 19 August 2026 the Bench said, prima facie, that stopping someone from finding a judgment by a party's name “will be a difficult proposition”. On 9 September it questioned blanket masking and suggested that privacy be considered case by case, with individuals approaching the court concerned. The next hearing is on 16 September 2026, and the position may change after it.
A wider question sits above the Delhi appeals. On 24 July 2024 the Supreme Court, in Ikanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd v. Karthick Theodore, stayed a February 2024 direction of a Madras High Court Division Bench that had ordered Indian Kanoon to take down an acquittal judgment and the court's registry to publish only a redacted version. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the right to be forgotten extends to court records. The matter is tagged with Alka Malhotra v. Union of India, which seeks redaction of names from matrimonial judgments, and both remain pending.
High Courts have not spoken with one voice. In Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India (December 2022), a Kerala High Court Division Bench held that privacy claims cannot defeat the publication of current or recent proceedings in an open court system, while directing that personal information in family and matrimonial cases not be published on court websites where the parties insist. Nor does the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 settle the question: its erasure right in section 12 comes into force only in May 2027, and the Act excludes personal data that a person is legally obliged to make public. Whether that exclusion covers published judgments has not been decided.
How to remove a court case from Google: step by step
Start with the outcome, in certified form. Obtain a certified copy of the acquittal, discharge, quashing order, compounding order or final decree from the court that passed it and, if the matter went on appeal, proof that the outcome is final. Every later step depends on this document; a request that describes the outcome without proving it is routinely refused. Note the case number at every level, since databases list appeals separately.
Next, list every URL. Search your name alone and together with the case number, the court, the police station and the offence, on Google and on each legal database. Record the court's own page, each database copy, aggregated versions and any news report, with a dated screenshot of each. This list defines the work; a single database copy is rarely the only route to the case.
Then apply for masking to the court that passed the judgment, by an application in the disposed matter. Both the 29 May judgment and the Division Bench on 9 September pointed to this route. Courts have granted it: in November 2024 the Delhi High Court directed its registry to mask the names of both parties as ABC and XYZ after the criminal proceedings were quashed. Masking usually changes the published version rather than the underlying file: the Madras High Court kept the unredacted judgment on its record, and the Karnataka High Court made clear in 2017 that certified copies would still carry the name.
With an order in hand, write to the databases. Indian Kanoon acts on an order of a competent court and says it has complied with interim orders directing name removal. Without one, its email process is limited to removing the identity of victims of sexual offences and of juveniles, and to blocking search engines from divorce, maintenance, adoption and custody cases, though not Supreme Court decisions. Send every other database the same order and URL list.
Then go to Google. Its legal removal webform accepts court orders against third parties and asks for a copy of the order, each URL, the exact text at issue and the part of the order that requires removal; an order directed at Google itself must be served formally, not through the form. Once a database has masked your name, Google's Refresh Outdated Content tool, which anyone can use, clears the stale snippet. If a database or Google refuses a properly supported request, the remaining route is a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court.
News reports about the case are a separate problem
A judgment and a news report about the same case are different documents with different owners. De-indexing a judgment does nothing to an article that reported your arrest, and a masked database entry can still sit beside a news story that names you. In the 29 May batch the court also directed the de-indexing of associated news articles for the petitioners who succeeded, which is why the two are usually argued together.
Media reports raise their own considerations: accurate reporting of court proceedings is protected, editors prefer updating a story to unpublishing it, and syndicated copies spread across aggregators. Our guide to removing news articles about an arrest covers the editorial and legal routes for that material. Treat it as a parallel workstream rather than something the court-record process will resolve on its own.
How long does it take, and what does it cost?
Timelines depend on the layer. A Refresh Outdated Content request can take a few days, and Indian Kanoon reviews eligible requests in batches every two to three weeks. Court routes are measured in months at the least. A masking application depends on the court's listing, while writ petitions can run for years: the lead petition in the 29 May batch was filed in 2016, and the case in which the Delhi High Court granted interim de-indexing relief in April 2021, Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India, was still being heard in December 2024.
Interim relief can arrive well before a final decision, and once an order is passed, compliance is quick; the 29 May judgment allowed two weeks. Costs follow the same pattern. Requests to databases and to Google can be filed yourself at no charge, while a masking application or writ petition involves court fees, advocates' fees and certified copies, all of which vary by court and complexity.
What not to do: fake court orders and false copyright claims
Some operators promise to remove a judgment within days by filing a copyright notice or presenting a court order that does not exist. Neither survives scrutiny, and both can make matters worse. A copyright claim over a judgment has no footing, because section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act permits its reproduction, and Google may send details of legal notices to the Lumen database for publication, where the claim itself can later be found. Forging a court record is an offence under section 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment.
Be equally wary of offers to bury the judgment beneath fake profiles and planted articles. That practice, usually sold as suppression, leaves the record indexed and one ranking change away from the first page. Nor should you threaten a database with a defamation case: accurate reports of court proceedings are an established exception to defamation, and a letter without a court order rarely moves a database whose stated policy is to act on orders. Our guide to fake takedown notices and forged court orders explains how to recognise these schemes.
How RepuLex handles court records and legal-database listings
RepuLex treats court records as one of its harder categories and says so at the outset. A judgment is a public record rather than unlawful content, so the question is never whether a platform has broken its own rules; it is whether the courts' framework supports de-indexing or masking on your facts. De-indexing from name searches is often achievable where deletion is not, and for most people that solves the practical problem, but it is not promised at the same confidence as the removal of unlawful content from a platform.
The work starts with the certified outcome and a complete URL map, then moves through database requests, Google requests and, where needed, masking applications or writ petitions filed through its partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates, because RepuLex is a reputation management agency and not a law firm. Legal-database, court-reported and national news URLs are quoted separately from standard removals, from ₹1,00,000 per URL, excluding 18% GST.
An agency earns its place when a case appears on many databases and news sites at once, when a database or Google has already refused, or when a court application is needed and one party should coordinate the legal and search-engine steps. If the case is still pending, or the conduct is public and you hold a public role, the candid advice is usually to wait for the outcome or to accept the record.
Frequently asked questions
How do I remove my name from Indian Kanoon?
Indian Kanoon's stated policy is to act on an order of a competent court, so the practical route is an order in your favour: a masking direction from the court that passed the judgment, or a High Court direction on a right to be forgotten petition. Without an order, it accepts email requests only to remove the identity of sexual-offence victims and juveniles, and to block search engines from divorce, maintenance, adoption and custody cases.
Does the Delhi High Court right to be forgotten judgment apply to my case automatically?
No. The 29 May 2026 directions cover the records identified by the petitioners in that batch, so anyone else must make their own request or application. The judgment is still useful: it sets out categories and reasoning that a database, a search engine or another court can be asked to follow. It is, however, under appeal, and courts outside Delhi may take a different view.
Will de-indexing remove the judgment from the court website?
No. De-indexing changes what a search engine shows when someone searches your name; the judgment stays on the court's website and in its records. Masking, where a court grants it, replaces your name in the published version, but courts have kept the unredacted original on file, and a certified copy issued later may still show your name.
Can I remove my divorce case from Google?
Often, at least from searches of your name. Concluded matrimonial proceedings were among the categories granted relief on 29 May 2026. The Kerala High Court has directed that personal information in family cases not be published on court websites where the parties insist, and Indian Kanoon will block search engines from divorce, maintenance, adoption and custody cases on request, except Supreme Court decisions.
Will Google remove a court judgment under its personal information policy?
Rarely. That policy is aimed at items such as contact details, identity numbers, bank details and private records such as medical records, and Google says it may not take down content about something important or newsworthy. A judgment usually falls outside it. The dependable Google route is a court order directing de-indexing, submitted through its legal removal process with the URLs and the relevant part of the order.
Can a pending court case be removed from Google?
Almost never. Every category of relief in the current framework depends on the proceedings having ended in a way that removes their basis, such as acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement. While a case is live, the interest in open justice is at its strongest. The useful step is to prepare the URL list now, so you can act as soon as the outcome is final.
Is the right to be forgotten a law in India?
Not as a statute in force. Courts recognise it as part of the right to privacy under Article 21, most fully in the Delhi High Court's judgment of 29 May 2026, but that ruling is under appeal and the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it reaches court records. The erasure right in section 12 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 does not commence until May 2027.
RepuLex Editorial
Legal Researcher · IT Law & Defamation Practice
RepuLex's editorial team is composed of practising advocates and senior legal researchers specialising in IT Act 2000, defamation law, and digital content enforcement across Indian High Courts. All articles are reviewed for legal accuracy before publication. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice — consult a qualified advocate for your specific situation.