7 “erased or rectified without delay”. Every single time, it cannot be expected that the victim shall approach the court to get the inaccurate data or information erased which is within the control of data controllers such as Facebook or Twitter or any other social media platforms. 7. A similar issue was raised in England in the Wales High Courts in NT1 and NT2 Vs. Google LLC2which ordered Google to delist search results referring to the spent conviction of a businessman known as NT2 but rejected a similar request made by a second businessman, NT1. The claimants therein had been convicted of certain criminal offences many years ago who complained that search results returned by Google featured links to third-party reports about the convictions in the past which were either inaccurate and/or old, irrelevant and of no public interest or otherwise an illegitimate interference with their rights. The reliefs sought in those cases were based on the prevailing data protection laws and English Law principles affording protection in case of tortuous misuse of private information. The Court rejected NT1’s request based on the fact that he was a public figure with a 2[2018] EWHC 799 (QB).