The right to erasure or blocking

In several cases, the need to balance this right with the freedom of expression and public interest has been highlighted as follows:

• Melvin v. Reid (as published in http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=bjil)

“In Melvin v. Reid, 34 decided in 1931, for example, a homemaker, who had once worked as a prostitute and who had been wrongly accused of murder, became the subject of a feature film (“The Red Kimono”) seven years after her acquittal, based on the facts of her trial. Although not specifically referencing a right to be forgotten, the court, permitting suit against the film-maker, noted: “One of the major objectives of society as it is now constituted, and of the administration of our penal system, is the rehabilitation of the fallen and the reformation of the criminal.” The court held that the unnecessary use of the plaintiff’s real name inhibited her right to obtain rehabilitation.”

• Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp. (http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-189?rskey=Mr5AR5&result=1)

“Newsworthiness, or public interest, generally trumps privacy in the United States. This fact was recognized as early as 1890, by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis in their famous Harvard Law Review article, “The Right to Privacy.” The principle was further reinforced in 1940, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that former child prodigy William James Sidis, who had made great efforts to become a private citizen again after having received extensive news coverage as a young boy, could not prevail in a privacy action against a magazine that featured him in a “Where Are They Now?” section. The court held that the public retained a legitimate interest in knowing whether Sidis had lived up to the intellectual promise of his youth.”

• Karnataka High Court Judgement (http://lexinsider.com/a-high-court-gives-life-to-the-right-to-be-forgotten-right/)

“…the High Court of Karnataka after passing of the order on a criminal matter which was relating to a complaint given by the Petitioner’s daughter and filing a case in the High Court that her marriage never happened with defendant. The petition was to annul the marriage certificate and later the case was quashed on comprise between the parties. In the same case Petitioner’s daughter name was requested to be removed from the digital records of the High Court and also from search engines including Google as it affected her relationship with her husband and her reputation as well.The High Court ordered, “It should be the endeavor of the Registry to ensure that any internet search made in the public domain ought not to reflect the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the cause-title of the order or in the body of the order in the criminal petition.”, giving life to this right. However, the name of the petitioner’s daughter would certainly be reflected in the order copy was made clear.”

Execute a written request to the organization, addressed to its Data Protection Officer (DPO), and have it received. In the letter, mention that your request is being made in exercise of your right to erasure under the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Documents to support your request must be attached. The DPO must act on your written request. In case you feel your request have not been addressed satisfactorily, you may file a formal complaint before the NPC, attached therewith your request letter to the DPO.