SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Protection (FIAIDP) ruled that personal information relating to an individual involved in labor disputes that was published in official news bulletins constituted a historical record and therefore should not be deleted. The applicant was involved in a labor dispute before the Federal Board of Conciliation and Arbitration (Board), which had served legal documents concerning the case to the applicant through its official bulletin that was published and archived online. The applicant requested the Board to remove his private data from the online bulletin because it exposed him to social and employment discrimination. The Board refused, explaining that it could only revise and not delete information. The FIAIDP upheld this refusal affirming the Board’s legal obligation to publish the bulletins as a public record of its activities and therefore the deletion of the applicant’s personal data from the bulletins and the Board’s archives would not be appropriate. However, the FIAIDP ruled that the Board should take steps to de-index the information concerning the applicant from search engine results since that would be in line with the “right to be forgotten,” which every person has in relation to his or her personal data. Finally, in India the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, ruled that the Court Registry should redact the name of a wife from the order confirming the withdrawal of criminal charges she had laid against her husband. After the wife had initiated various legal proceedings against her husband, the two agreed on a compromise and obtained a court order quashing all charges. However, the wife’s name was prominent on that order and the online version of the court order would appear when her name was searched on internet search engines, which could jeopardize her relationship with her husband and her reputation. The High Court acknowledged the “right to be forgotten”, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues of modesty and reputation, and ordered that the wife’s name be redacted from all online versions of the order. 27