A division bench hearing Indian Kanoon's challenge to a right-to-be-forgotten ruling said free access to judgments is tied to the livelihood of lawyers who cannot pay for commercial databases.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that a vast majority of legal professionals cannot afford subscriptions to paid legal research websites and instead rely on free portals such as Indian Kanoon. A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar made the observation while hearing a batch of appeals filed by Indian Kanoon against a single-judge decision recognising the right to be forgotten. [1]
The bench said many lawyers, particularly those outside commercial practice, cannot afford subscriptions to databases such as Manupatra and SCC Online, where unredacted versions of judgments remain available. Justice Shankar described Indian Kanoon as "their be all and end all since it is free," adding that access to judgments is essential to the right to livelihood of legal professionals and is effectively being foreclosed. [1] [1]
The Court said access to judgments is "seriously impacted" by the right-to-be-forgotten verdict delivered by a single judge on June 1, characterising subscriptions as a practical bar for common practitioners. The appeals arise from that decision, in which the Court recognised a person's right to be forgotten and held that individuals can seek removal of their names from searchable court records where information is "no longer relevant" or serves "no legitimate public purpose." [1] [1] [1]
Indian Kanoon has told the Court it faces serious issues because of the judgment and that judgments it was directed to mask remain available without redaction on paid portals. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for a respondent, argued that the right to be forgotten had not led to complete erasure and that the person can still access the judgment, perhaps with greater difficulty. The bench replied that once access by case name is blocked, the judgment is blocked for practical purposes, and Justice Shankar rejected case-number and date searches as a substitute. [1] [1] [1] [1]
Sibal said his client was discharged from a CBI case a decade ago and asked what becomes of his presumption of innocence and reputation, arguing his right to be forgotten cannot be ignored. The Court said its next hearing is on September 21. The earlier ruling was reported by Bar & Bench on June 1. [1] [3]
Research coverage is limited to Bar & Bench reporting captured on September 17, 2026; no original court record, order or transcript was captured, so the bench's remarks are known only as reported.
The discovery title is a topic to investigate, not evidence; captured sources describe only an interim appellate hearing, not a final adjudication of Indian Kanoon's appeals.
No independently obtained evidence was captured, so the article's assertions rest on a single publisher's reporting; this does not establish that the reported claims are true.
A topical page captured from the same publisher carried no source date and a headline about June 1, 2026 guidelines; its role is limited to date context and its headline was not treated as evidence of guideline content.
Conflicting detail: the first captured piece says the June 1 ruling was by Justice Sachin Datta, while the topical page's description of the guidelines does not identify the author; this unexplained difference is flagged rather than resolved.
No evidence of disagreement with the bench's affordability observation was captured; this absence of disagreement is not evidence of consensus.
No claim in the draft concerns whether the right to be forgotten is legally sound, whether masking orders are effective, or the future of open legal databases, because the captured sources do not resolve such questions.
Media candidates were all marked excluded, so no image or video selection could be made.
No original document was captured. Available evidence consists of publisher reporting.
Some candidate sources were inaccessible or outside the supported research domains; consult the capture log.
[1] Bar & Bench · Most lawyers can't afford paid legal databases: Delhi HC in Indian Kanoon right to be forgotten case ↗
17/9/2026 · Publisher reporting
[2] Bar & Bench · Most lawyers can't afford paid legal databases: Delhi HC in Indian Kanoon right to be forgotten case ↗
17/9/2026 · Publisher reporting
[3] Bar & Bench · right to be forgotten ↗
Source date not supplied · Publisher reporting
Source records and any dated corrections accompany this article.
Corrections & clarificationsA Lok Sabha answer says there is presently no proposal to impose UPI transaction charges, while a YourStory report describes a 0.4% merchant discount rate above Rs 2,000 and competing brokerage estimates of what it could yield.
A single YourStory report says Applied Materials announced a decade-long $5B India plan at SEMICON India 2026, including a 140-acre research park and a doubled R&D workforce by 2035. PIB materials place Applied Materials at the event and at a PM-chaired roundtable held separately at Seva Teerth on 16 September 2026, but do not carry the figures.
The captured research addresses launch-market competition and space-based AI compute, but supplies no India-versus-SpaceX cost-per-kilogram comparison. Our draft states only what the papers model.