Name-based searches on legal databases in ‘public interest’: Delhi High Court
The court made the observation while hearing Indian Kanoon’s challenge to a single-judge order restricting name-based searches after upholding the right to be forgotten of people earlier accused in criminal cases.
Flagging that it has had to take down over 80 judgments owing to this ruling, Indian Kanoon sought that the verdict be set aside and that its operation be stayed in the interim.
The Delhi High Court Wednesday said searching for court judgments by a person’s name is essential and “not even remotely a substitute” for other search methods on legal databases. It also remarked that keeping name-based searches available on legal databases is in “public interest”.
A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a bunch of appeals by Indian Kanoon — a free legal database — which is contesting a single judge’s verdict that had directed the website to restrict name-based searches. The direction came after the single judge in May upheld the right to be forgotten of people who had earlier been accused in criminal cases.
Flagging that it has had to take down over 80 judgments owing to this ruling, Indian Kanoon sought that the verdict be set aside and that its operation be stayed in the interim.
The legal database argued that the “overbroad and impractical direction” for censure of particular names from search results “ought to be first addressed at the point of origin” — court registries. Court registries are responsible for making court records public on their respective websites.
Addressing senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for an accused who is opposing Indian Kanoon’s appeal, Justice C Hari Shankar remarked, “Prima facie, to say that I should not be able to access a judgment by giving the name of the party… Suppose this principle was made applicable across all legal software, your practice will go for a toss. If you’re going to say that I don’t want [judgments] on Manupatra or SCC online and I’ve to start searching by giving the writ petition number, you’ll never be able to access any judgment.”
“If one of the considerations [by the single judge] was public interest, public interest is certainly in favour of access to this. You can’t say that a person who wants to access a judgment should know the writ petition number and date (of the judgment), no one knows it. Your name, suppose it is Harshad Mehta [stock broker accused of market manipulation in a 1992 securities scam]. There is a judgment from SC or Delhi HC and I want to access it. I give the name ‘Harshad Mehta’ and I am able to access the judgment. Why should I not be able to do that?”
While Sibal argued that judgments could also be searched using a specific legal proposition, the bench disagreed.
Story continues below this ad
“No, we don’t agree with you… We are using these search engines day in and day out… it is a herculean effort to do that [search by legal proposition or any other clues except for searching by name]. It is not even remotely a substitute for name search,” Justice Shankar remarked during the hearing, while addressing Sibal’s contentions.
The court will hear the matter further on September 2.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
