Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 Forgotten/Right to Oblivion” to state that ―in the context of the Internet this dimension of privacy means informational autonomy or informational selfdetermination…Information self-determination means the control over one‘s personal information, the individual‘s right to decide which information will be disclosed, to whom and for what purpose‖. The Judgement goes on to observe that, in the digital context, the “right to delisting” and “right to oblivion” are facets of the right to be forgotten. 45. The argument that has been advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent intermediaries is that as search engines merely provide access to content and are not responsible for hosting the said content, directions must be rendered to the publishers and not the search engines themselves. It is at this stage that a search engine’s role in ensuring that one’s right to privacy is not contravened comes into prominence, especially with Rule 3(1)(m) which states that the intermediary shall respect all the rights accorded to the citizens under the Constitution, including Articles 14, 19 and 21. It is further essential to state that the continued existence of NCII content on the internet does not serve any public interest and it is punishable under Section 66E of the IT Act. The argument, therefore, put forth on behalf of the Respondent intermediaries is not acceptable to this Court. Social Responsibility of Search Engines 46. The duty and the liability of a search engine has been expounded in Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Case C131/12, wherein the Plaintiff’s grievance was that a Google Search of his Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 69 of 88