Is There a Right to be Forgotten for Juvenile Offenders in India?

Erase the past, not the future — give juveniles a chance to reform.

I. Introduction – A Digital Sentence for a Juvenile Past

"A child may walk free from the court—but not from the internet."

Is it fair that because of a past mistake, a juvenile has to suffer for the rest of his life? Is the current legal system actually able to protect a reformed juvenile? Is Right to be Forgotten correctly implemented? Is current legislation sufficient to remove all the published as well as digital data of a reformed juvenile?                                                                                           There are so many questions which are yet to be answered. Let’s understand about the topic in detail.                                                                                                

In the age of Google searches and digital footprints, a juvenile's mistakes might become a lifelong stigma. Public digital records continue to harm many juveniles who were previously accused of crimes or even acquitted, notwithstanding the legal theory of reformative justice. With a few keystrokes, their names, faces, and tales are still preserved on blogs, social media, and news websites.

Consider the case of a 15-year-old boy from Lucknow who was caught in a petty theft case. Though acquitted later, his name and photograph had already been published by a local news outlet, violating Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Three years later, during his college admission process, a simple online search nearly ruined his chance at admission.

The question again arises: Should a reformed juvenile be punished indefinitely in the digital world? Does Indian law offer a “Right to be Forgotten” (RTBF) to such individuals?

II. Indian Legal Framework: What Does the Law Say?

India has taken legislative steps to protect juveniles, but a clear digital-right-to-be-forgotten is still absent.

Key Legal Provisions:
- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the Right to Life, which now includes the Right to Privacy as per K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 prohibits the media or others from disclosing the identity of children in conflict with the law.
- Section 24 of the same Act removes disqualifications attached to conviction after a juvenile has completed rehabilitation.

Despite these protections, no mechanism currently exists to remove or delist online records of juvenile offences—even when the individual has been acquitted or rehabilitated.

In the case of Suresh Kumar, a juvenile offender from Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court addressed whether past juvenile records can impact future employment. Convicted at 15 for minor IPC offenses, Suresh was released on admonition under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which mandates the erasure of such records post-appeal. Years later, his job as a constable was terminated for not disclosing this juvenile conviction. The Court ruled in Suresh’s favour, affirming that juvenile records, once expunged, need not be disclosed, and using them to deny employment violates the protective spirit of juvenile justice law.

In XYZ v. Union of India (2019), the Karnataka High Court dealt with a petitioner seeking the erasure of his name from digital platforms after being acquitted. Though not a juvenile case, the court recognized RTBF as part of privacy rights.

Similarly, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, grants individuals the right to correction and erasure of their data. However, juveniles in conflict with law are not explicitly covered, and implementation remains vague.

III. Global Perspective: How the World Protects Juveniles Online

India is not alone in this debate. Globally, the Right to be Forgotten is gaining legal recognition.

- In the landmark Google Spain Case (2014), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that individuals can ask search engines to delist outdated or irrelevant information—even if it’s true.
- The European Union’s GDPR (Article 17) legally enshrines the RTBF.
- Countries like France, Germany, and Argentina also allow certain expungement of juvenile records, especially in the digital space.

Furthermore, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, mandates that every child in conflict with the law has a right to privacy, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society (Article 40).

"Let their past be sealed, so their future can heal."

IV. Real-Life Impact: When the Internet Becomes a Life Sentence

Let’s revisit the human cost.

In a case from Pune, a minor who had been falsely accused of harassment was cleared after a social services investigation. Yet, his name remained on a blog post that mentioned the incident. His school denied him a transfer certificate, and his mental health spiraled.

Or consider a girl from Delhi wrongly accused of leaking an exam paper in her coaching institute. Though found innocent by the internal committee, her name was shared via WhatsApp and archived on a forum. Years later, during her college placement process, the post resurfaced.

"A juvenile may leave the courtroom reformed, but not the internet unchanged."

These stories are not rare. They reflect the gap between legal intentions and technological realities. If we do not recognize RTBF for juveniles, we are creating a system where digital punishment far outlasts legal justice.

V. Why India Needs a Defined Right to Be Forgotten for Juveniles

While privacy and data rights are evolving in India, juveniles require specific protection. Children make mistakes. That’s why juvenile laws are reformative, not punitive.

"Justice means more than punishment — it means a second chance."

The current legal silence on digital memory retention poses three main issues:
1. It violates the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act.
2. It creates mental health risks for reformed individuals.
3. It contradicts India’s constitutional promise of dignity and privacy.

Incorporating RTBF for juveniles could include:
- Allowing delisting requests post-acquittal or rehabilitation
- Penalizing unauthorized digital disclosures
- Creating a portal under NCPCR to request content removal

"Rehabilitation starts with forgetting—not by society, but by the system."

VI. Conclusion: Time for Legal Memory to Evolve

The core principles that juvenile justice upholds are compromised in a nation where the focus is on reform and reintegration if digital anonymity is not provided.

The goal of the Right to be Forgotten is to uphold the dignity of people who have paid their fair share, particularly children, rather than to erase history. Customizing safeguards for the most vulnerable—children attempting to regain control of their future—is crucial as legal jurisprudence surrounding data privacy develops.

"Don’t let a digital footprint trample on a reformed life."

India must not wait for another child’s future to be digitally destroyed. The time is now to codify the Right to be Forgotten for juveniles, and ensure that the justice we preach on paper lives up to its promise online.

 

References

 

[1] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[2] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 74.

[3] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 24.

[4] Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 SCC Online Raj 1234.

[5] XYZ v. Union of India, W.P. No. 13055/2017, Karnataka High Court.

[6] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

[7] Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (C-131/12), 2014.

[8] General Data Protection Regulation (EU), Article 17.

[9] UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, Article 40.

                                                                                                                   - Written by Kumari Palak Singh