Delhi HC Says Paid Legal Databases Lock Out Most Lawyers In Indian Kanoon Appeals
A source capture supporting an article in The Chitragupta Chronicle.
Captured · 3 documentsWhat is preserved
The source documents returned at the capture time have been retained privately (HTML, readable text or PDF). This is a webpage capture, not a complete copy of the publisher’s media or a platform export.
Visit the source · Bar & Bench ↗Most lawyers can't afford paid legal databases: Delhi HC in Indian Kanoon right to be forgotten case
Bar & Bench · Original source ↗
Captured 17/9/2026, 1:04:40 pm · text/html; charset=utf-8
SHA-256: a05016b26eb5ba60863023a7fbc2975cb09a5cb261ac29b1f55dc6d3b45ae1e0
Most lawyers can't afford paid legal databases: Delhi HC in Indian Kanoon right to be forgotten case
Bar & Bench · Original source ↗
Captured 17/9/2026, 1:04:40 pm · text/html; charset=utf-8
SHA-256: f64806d9e5f8329dcf317690e4b5dd77ba98739e360d8d49f111a96b4d266a1f
right to be forgotten
Bar & Bench · Original source ↗
Captured 17/9/2026, 1:04:41 pm · text/html; charset=utf-8
SHA-256: e726257cd55c004300dc4caa6deb758dfa485c623fd4326519f7c999148f3fd3
Capture integrity
SHA-256: a05016b26eb5ba60863023a7fbc2975cb09a5cb261ac29b1f55dc6d3b45ae1e0
A matching hash confirms that captured bytes have not changed. It does not establish that the publisher’s claims are true or that the page had this content before the capture date.
Limits of this record
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.
The original file is retained for editorial reference. Reproduction rights have not been established, so the raw capture is not publicly redistributed.