Google Tells Karnataka High Court ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Not Recognised Under DPDP Act; Foreign National Cannot Invoke Article 21 Against Private Entity

The Karnataka High Court on April 15 heard significant submissions from Google LLC concerning the scope of the “right to be forgotten” and the enforceability of fundamental rights against private entities in India.

The matter came up before Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in a writ petition filed by Justice A.H.M.D. Nawaz, a sitting judge of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court. The petitioner sought directions for the removal of allegedly defamatory online content and a complete restriction on URL-based searches related to him, invoking his “right to be forgotten” under the Constitution of India.

Google’s Key Submissions

Appearing for Google, Advocate Manu P. Kulkarni argued that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 does not recognise the “right to be forgotten,” stating that Parliament has consciously omitted such a provision.

He further contended that:

• Fundamental rights, including Article 21, are enforceable only within the territory of India and cannot be invoked by a foreign national residing abroad.

• The petitioner, being a Sri Lankan citizen residing in Sri Lanka, lacks the necessary territorial nexus to seek enforcement of such rights before an Indian court.

• A writ petition is not maintainable against a private entity like Google, as constitutional remedies typically lie against State actions.

• The “right to reputation” is a common law right, not a fundamental right, and must be enforced through civil remedies such as defamation suits.

Relying on the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment, Google argued that privacy-related claims against private actors are best addressed through civil law remedies, not writ jurisdiction.

Google also raised the issue of forum non conveniens, asserting that India—and specifically the Karnataka High Court—is an inappropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute involving a Sri Lankan judge, particularly when the allegedly defamatory content originates from Sri Lankan sources.

Jurisdictional and International Law Concerns

Google submitted that extending Indian constitutional protections to foreign nationals abroad would violate principles of public international law. It further argued that mere occasional presence in India does not establish sufficient connection to claim constitutional protections.

The company clarified that Google Search services are provided by Google LLC based in the United States, while its Indian subsidiary primarily handles advertising services, thereby questioning the jurisdiction of Indian courts in this matter.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 253 of the Constitution, read with obligations under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Convention, empowers Indian courts to entertain such petitions in the spirit of mutual legal assistance among member nations.

The petitioner also submitted that:

• Filing a case in Sri Lanka may raise concerns of bias, given his judicial position there.

• India serves as a neutral forum, especially since Google maintains an operational presence in Bengaluru.

Government’s Stand

The counsel appearing for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) informed the Court that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 before approaching the High Court.

Court’s Observation & Next Hearing

The Court orally questioned whether the writ petition is maintainable, especially since the petitioner seeks removal of online content rather than damages. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 28, 2025.

Case Title: Justice A.H.M.D. Nawaz v. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology & Ors.