Karnataka HC Tackles Right to Forgotten and ED Probe - 2026-01-22

Karnataka High Court Advances Privacy Rights and Scrutinizes ED Powers

In a significant development for privacy jurisprudence and enforcement accountability, the Karnataka High Court on January 21, 2025, listed a batch of petitions seeking enforcement of the 'Right to Be Forgotten' (RTBF) for hearing in February, while issuing notices to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a challenge to its search and seizure operations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). These proceedings highlight the judiciary's role in balancing individual privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution against the imperatives of transparent justice and robust anti-money laundering measures. As digital footprints become indelible, the RTBF cases underscore the growing demand for personal data erasure post-acquittal or case closure, whereas the ED challenge questions the agency's procedural rigor in probing alleged gambling proceeds. Legal professionals are closely watching these matters, which could refine the contours of privacy protections and PMLA safeguards in India.

Evolution of the Right to Be Forgotten in Indian Jurisprudence

The concept of the Right to Be Forgotten, though not explicitly codified in Indian law, has gained traction following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (2017), which affirmed privacy as a fundamental right intrinsic to Article 21's guarantee of life and personal liberty. This decision dismantled outdated notions that privacy was merely a common law derivative, paving the way for judicial interventions to protect individuals from perpetual online stigmatization, especially after legal exoneration.

In India, unlike the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which mandates search engines to delink irrelevant or outdated personal data, RTBF enforcement relies on piecemeal court orders. A notable precedent emerged from the Karnataka High Court itself in 2022, when it directed 17 media outlets to temporarily block articles, videos, and comments revealing the names of two individuals acquitted in a case under child labor laws and the Juvenile Justice Act. Citing Puttaswamy , the court emphasized that continued publication post-acquittal infringes privacy without serving public interest.

The current batch of petitions builds on this foundation, reflecting a surge in such claims amid the digital proliferation of court records and news. Petitioners, often linked to resolved criminal probes, argue that public access to their names perpetuates harm, violating their rehabilitative rights. One plea specifically targets defamatory, offensive, or disparaging articles published by news outlets related to an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) investigation. Another seeks restraints on media reproduction of content tied to an ED case and a Lokayuktha police registration, framing it as a direct assault on Article 21 privacy.

During the January 21 hearing, Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad permitted counsel for certain petitioners to de-tag their individual matters from the batch, recognizing the nuanced privacy needs. The court then scheduled the consolidated hearing for February 20, 2025, and extended existing interim orders to maintain status quo. As one counsel highlighted in arguments, "The pleas seek masking of the names of the individuals from online platforms as well as on third-party sites." This interim protection is crucial, preventing further dissemination while the court deliberates on permanent remedies like mandatory delinking.

These developments signal a maturing judicial approach to RTBF, potentially compelling online platforms and third-party aggregators to implement robust compliance mechanisms. For legal practitioners specializing in media and technology law, this could mean an uptick in advisory roles for content moderation policies aligned with constitutional mandates.

Challenge Mounts Against ED's Gambling-Linked PMLA Actions

Parallel to the RTBF proceedings, the Karnataka High Court turned its attention to allegations of overreach by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering investigation tied to online betting and gambling. Puppy Tours and Travels LLP, the petitioner firm, has mounted a vigorous challenge to the ED's search, seizure, and bank account freezing operations conducted between August 22 and September 9, 2025—dates that appear anomalous but as per records—alleging they lack statutory justification under PMLA.

The ED's probe originates from FIRs spanning 10-15 years, primarily under IPC Section 420 for cheating, with claims that proceeds from illicit betting activities were laundered, invoking Section 3 of PMLA. The agency seized valuables and froze accounts, followed by a show cause notice on September 29, 2025. However, the petitioners contend that most predicate offenses—the underlying crimes necessary for PMLA jurisdiction—have been quashed, closed, or resulted in acquittals. In the sole surviving case, a closure report (B report) has been filed by the investigating agency, specifically the Cyber Cell in Madhya Pradesh.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after hearing initial arguments, issued notices to the ED, which were accepted by counsel. The court dictated: "The learned counsel accepts notice for ED in both matters. Objections be filed at least on the interim prayer by the next date. List the matter on January 29 in fresh matters list." The petitioner's advocate, represented by Advocates Rajath and Mayank Jain, argued the absence of any "reason to believe" as required under Section 17(1) of PMLA for authorizing searches. They emphasized, "He questioned whether the central agency had any reasons to conduct the search on the day that it was conducted, claiming that there was nothing against the petitioner." Furthermore, the freezing order provided no reasoned justification, and a connected petitioner, KC Veerendra (or Nagaraja), had already secured bail from the trial court.

The plea, titled Puppy Tours and Travels LLP Vs. Union of India and Another (WP 964/2026) and the linked KC Nagaraja Vs. Union of India and Another (WP 966/2026), seeks a declaration that the ED's actions are illegal, demanding return of seized property and unfreezing of accounts. Critically, it asserts: "The petitioner has alleged that the ED conducted search and seizure on 22.08.2025 to 09.09.2025 and seized valuables and has also frozen various bank accounts." The matter's listing before the PMLA adjudicating authority on February 5 adds urgency, with petitioners seeking a stay on those proceedings.

This case exemplifies broader critiques of ED's enforcement style, often accused of initiating probes on tenuous links to predicate offenses. While the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India (2022) upheld PMLA's expansive powers, it implicitly required a demonstrable nexus to live crimes, a threshold the petitioners argue is unmet here.

Legal Framework and Judicial Arguments in Depth

The RTBF petitions invoke a delicate equilibrium between Article 21 privacy and Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech, including press rights. Courts must assess if the information's public value—such as ongoing societal risks—justifies retention, or if post-resolution delinking restores dignity without undermining transparency. The 2022 Karnataka order serves as a blueprint, but scaling it to "third-party sites" raises enforcement challenges, potentially requiring writs against non-parties like Google or social media giants.

In the ED matter, PMLA's Section 17 empowers searches akin to CrPC provisions but with a higher "reason to believe" standard, informed by tangible evidence of laundering. Petitioners' core argument—that closed predicates vitiate jurisdiction—aligns with rulings like Parmanand Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023, Delhi HC), where attachments were quashed for lacking live links. ED's counsel countered with the pending Madhya Pradesh predicate, but the court seeks detailed objections, signaling skepticism toward blanket reliance on historical FIRs. As articulated in the plea: "If the predicate offences have been quashed/ closed/ acquitted and in the sole surviving predicate offence, the agency has filed a closure report, the ED does not have any valid reason to believe in terms of Section 17(1) of the PMLA and moreso having nexus with the live predicate offence."

These arguments illuminate procedural vulnerabilities: ED must furnish pre-search materials under RTI-like scrutiny, and interim reliefs could expedite quashing of attachments, easing financial burdens on targets.

Broader Implications for Privacy and Enforcement Practices

For the legal community, these cases portend transformative shifts. RTBF advancements may normalize masking in e-filed judgments, prompting bar associations to develop protocols for anonymized pleadings. Media houses face compliance costs for archiving systems, while tech lawyers anticipate a deluge of Section 69A IT Act requests for content removal. In PMLA practice, defense counsel will pivot to early challenges on predicate viability, leveraging tools like closure reports to dismantle "proceeds of crime" claims. The ED's image, already under fire for selective targeting, could prompt internal reforms or legislative tweaks to PMLA's attachment provisions.

On a systemic level, these proceedings reinforce judicial oversight in an era of surveillance capitalism and aggressive probes. Post- Puttaswamy , privacy's weaponization against state overreach—be it media sensationalism or agency raids—empowers marginalized litigants, fostering a more equitable justice delivery. However, without a comprehensive data protection law (the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is nascent), ad hoc rulings risk inconsistency, urging Parliament for RTBF statutory backing.

Looking Ahead: The Road to February Hearings

As the Karnataka High Court prepares for the February 20 RTBF batch and the January 29 ED listing, these cases hold promise for clarifying privacy's contours in judicial and digital realms. Interim extensions in RTBF ensure ongoing protection, while ED's response could reveal the evidentiary bedrock—or lack thereof—in gambling probes. For legal professionals, staying attuned offers strategic foresight: RTBF may redefine rehabilitation, and PMLA scrutiny could temper enforcement zeal. Ultimately, these benches affirm the judiciary's pivotal role in harmonizing individual rights with collective security, a balance ever more critical in India's evolving legal landscape.