The Daily Docket — Tuesday, June 2, 2026 — The IT Rebound & Right-to-Be-Forgotten Issue
EduLaw EditorialEduLaw Daily Newsletter↑ The EduLaw · Daily Legal & Civic Intelligence The Daily Docket Tuesday, June 2, 2026 · Vol. I, Issue 034 · THE IT REBOUND & RIGHT-TO-BE-FORGOTTEN ISSUE · Law · Geopolitics · Markets · Polity SC Roundup 25 HC Pulse Tribunal Wire Listed Tomorrow Statute Watch Bare Act Topic of the Day Quiz Flashcards Lead · The Day In One Sentence Indian equities snapped a four-day losing streak on Tuesday as a 4.2% surge in IT stocks and cooling crude powered the Sensex up 382.50 points to 74,649.84 and the Nifty up 100.95 to 24,483.55 — sorry, 23,483.55 — even as five new judges were sworn in to take the Supreme Court's working strength to 37, and legal commentary continued to dissect the Delhi High Court's landmark recognition, days earlier, of the "right to be forgotten" as a facet of informational privacy under Article 21. A volatile Tuesday session opened weak on monsoon anxieties and caution ahead of the coming RBI policy meeting, before an afternoon rally — led by TCS, Infosys, HCL Tech and Wipro — pulled both benchmark indices into the green. Markets shrugged off overnight uncertainty around US-Iran talks and a 1.5% dip in Brent crude to $93.45/bbl, even as India's April IIP print, released the same day under a rebased 2022-23 series, showed industrial growth slowing to 4.9%. On the legal front, the Delhi High Court's 144-page ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India , recognising a constitutional right to be forgotten and ordering de-indexing of judicial records from search engines, continued to dominate commentary a week after being delivered — alongside the Supreme Court's new "Victim Protection Plan" for trafficking survivors and the Court's own historic expansion to 37 judges. +382 Sensex Close (pts) 74,649.84 · +0.52% +101 Nifty Close (pts) 23,483.55 · +0.43% $93.45 Brent Crude −1.5% on US-Iran talk hopes +4.2% Nifty IT (session) TCS +6.7%; Infosys +5.6% 37 SC Judges' Strength 5 new judges sworn in June 2 4.9% IIP Growth, April 2026 rebased 2022-23 series Today's Reading Plan Pick Your Lane · 25 Minutes Total Lead · The Right-to-Be-Forgotten Ruling 11 min Topic of the Day · SC's Victim Protection Plan 7 min HC Pulse + Tribunal Scan 5 min Quiz · Flashcards · Poll 2 min The 90 Second Brief Lead · Privacy Law Commentary continued on the Delhi High Court's May 29 ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India , where Justice Sachin Datta held that the "right to be forgotten" flows from informational privacy under Article 21 and ordered Google and Indian Kanoon to de-index and mask judicial records in qualifying cases. Markets · IT Rebound Sensex climbed 382.50 points to 74,649.84 (+0.52%); Nifty rose 100.95 to 23,483.55 (+0.43%), snapping a four-day losing streak. A 4.2% single-day surge in Nifty IT — its third straight day of gains, up 7.6% cumulatively — powered the afternoon rally after a weak, monsoon-anxious open. Oil · Iran Talks Brent crude eased over 1.5% to $93.45/bbl and WTI to $90.74 after President Trump said in an ABC News interview that he expected a deal within a week to extend the ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz — reversing a more combative stance from the previous day. Judiciary Chief Justice Surya Kant administered the oath of office to five new Supreme Court judges on June 2, taking the Court's working strength to 37 — following the Union government's approval to raise the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37, excluding the CJI. Trafficking Law Continuing analysis of Prajwala v. Union of India (May 29, 2026), where Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation have a constitutional right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23, issuing a first-of-its-kind "Victim Protection Plan." Monsoon Watch The IMD forecast the Southwest Monsoon to reach Kerala around June 4 , delayed from the originally forecast May 26 date, with markets citing monsoon-timing anxiety as a factor behind Tuesday's weak morning open. Economy India's Index of Industrial Production for April 2026, released June 1 under a newly rebased 2022-23 series, showed growth slowing to 4.9% from 5.7-5.8% a year earlier, weighed down by a contraction in mining and quarrying activity. Public Finance On June 1, FIIs sold shares worth ₹3,911.68 crore while DIIs bought a net ₹5,109.13 crore , per exchange data — a pattern of steady domestic institutional support that continued into Tuesday's session. Editor's Note Tuesday's session offered a familiar rhythm: a nervous, monsoon-shadowed open giving way to an afternoon rally powered, this time, by the very sector that has spent much of the year under pressure. The Nifty IT index's 4.2% single-day surge — its third consecutive day of gains — pulled the Sensex and Nifty out of a four-session slump, with TCS rallying nearly 7% and Infosys almost 6% on the back of a newly announced AI-editorial partnership with Germany's Handelsblatt Media Group. Markets found further comfort in President Trump's overnight comments to ABC News suggesting a deal to extend the Iran ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz could be reached "over the next week," reversing a more combative posture and pulling Brent crude down toward $93 a barrel. But the more durable legal story of the week, still generating commentary as June opened, sits not on Dalal Street but in a 144-page judgment delivered by Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court on May 29. In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters , the Court held that the "right to be forgotten" — understood as an individual's ability to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility once it no longer serves a legitimate public purpose — flows naturally from the constitutional guarantee of informational privacy under Article 21. Ruling on a batch of petitions from individuals acquitted, discharged, or party to quashed or settled proceedings whose names nonetheless remained permanently and prominently searchable online, the Court carved a careful middle path: judicial records themselves remain preserved in full for institutional and precedential purposes, but search engines and legal-database operators must de-index or mask personal identifiers so that a person's name no longer functions as an "unlimited retrieval key" for casual searchers. This issue's lead traces that ruling in full, examines the Supreme Court's parallel "Victim Protection Plan" for trafficking survivors as the Topic of the Day, and carries every recurring feature — the 25 HC Pulse, the Tribunal Wire, the Statute Watch, the Bare Act of the Day on Article 21, the How-To-Answer model, and the Practising Lawyer's Corner — alongside the interactive layer of a live poll, flip flashcards, a self-check quiz, and a reading-progress bar. Lead · Constitutional Law & Digital Privacy ⏱ 11 min read The Right To Be Forgotten Arrives In India: Reading The Delhi High Court's Landmark Privacy Ruling Delivered May 29, 2026 Case: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Connected Matters Status: Petitions disposed of; compliance affidavit awaited Provisions: Article 21; Open Justice Doctrine 30 Second Read The Ruling: The Delhi High Court, in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (Neutral Citation 2026:DHC:4891), held that the "right to be forgotten" is a constitutionally protected facet of informational privacy under Article 21. The Relief: The Court directed Google and other search engines to de-index judicial records and reportage from name-based searches, and directed Indian Kanoon to restrict name-based search functionality — while keeping records fully accessible via case number, citation and court details. The Facts: Petitioners included individuals acquitted, discharged, or whose FIRs were quashed or matrimonial disputes settled, arguing that permanent name-based digital searchability caused continuing prejudice to dignity, marriage prospects and livelihoods. The Balance: The Court held that de-indexing does not conflict with open justice, since records remain preserved for institutional and precedential purposes — only unrestricted name-based retrieval is moderated, drawing on the ECHR's Hurbain v. Belgium reasoning. ◆ PYQ Connector, UPSC Mains GS II on right to privacy and its facets; UPSC Prelims on Article 21 jurisprudence; CLAT on informational privacy and open justice; Judicial Services on the doctrine of proportionality in privacy-versus-transparency disputes. India has never had a codified statute governing the "right to be forgotten." The closest legislative gesture — Section 20 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — offers a limited "right to erasure" of personal data held by data fiduciaries, but does not touch judicial records, news archives, or search-engine indexing of publicly available court documents. Into that vacuum, over the past several years, individual High Courts had granted piecemeal, fact-specific relief — ordering particular judgments masked or de-indexed for particular litigants — without ever articulating a general constitutional foundation. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav is significant precisely because it moves beyond ad hoc relief to hold, as a matter of doctrine, that the right to be forgotten "flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21," extending the reasoning of the nine-judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) privacy verdict into the specific context of digital permanence. The judgment's analytical architecture rests on three moves. First , the Court distinguished "informational self-determination" — an individual's control over which information about themselves is disclosed, to whom, and for what purpose — from mere secrecy or physical seclusion, situating privacy in the digital age as an active, ongoing exercise of control rather than a one-time act of concealment. Second , the Court confronted the open-justice objection directly: transparency in judicial proceedings, it held, requires that records exist, be maintained, and remain accessible to those with a legitimate interest — but open justice "cannot be conflated with unrestricted and perpetual digital amplification of personal information through modern search technologies." A record preserved on a court website or on Indian Kanoon and still searchable via case number, citation or date remains fully within the open-justice guarantee; what changes is only the ease with which a casual, name-based search surfaces it years or decades after the underlying dispute has been resolved. Third , drawing on the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber ruling in Hurbain v. Belgium , the Court held that de-indexing — rather than erasure of the underlying record — is the least restrictive, most proportionate mechanism available to reconcile privacy and institutional accountability. The record is preserved in its entirety for institutional, precedential and accountability purposes. What changes is only that the concerned name... ceases to function as an unlimited retrieval key that instantly and effortlessly surfaces the record for any casual internet user who happens to search that name. Justice Sachin Datta, Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, May 29, 2026 The remedy structure is worth studying closely for its layered specificity. "De-indexing" removes a document from search-engine retrieval by name while leaving the underlying URL and content untouched and independently accessible. "Masking," a narrower and more surgical remedy, substitutes a party's name and identifying details with a neutral placeholder such as "ABC" or "XYZ" in the publicly accessible digital version of a record, while the complete, unredacted record remains preserved in judicial archives for institutional use. The Court granted petitioners liberty to separately seek masking before the very courts that had originally rendered the concerned judgments — recognising that the de-indexing relief granted centrally could not, by itself, address every case's specific need for identity substitution within the judgment text. Crucially, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was directed to ensure platform compliance and file a compliance affidavit, giving the ruling an enforcement mechanism that many privacy-rights judgments in India have historically lacked. The Constitutional Scales · Privacy v. Open Justice Does De-Indexing Judicial Records Undermine Open Justice? For The Right To Be Forgotten Permanent, frictionless name-based searchability of decades-old acquittals, quashed FIRs and settled matrimonial disputes causes disproportionate, continuing harm to dignity and livelihood — harm the original proceedings never intended to impose indefinitely. ⚖ For Unrestricted Open Justice Judicial transparency and public accountability depend on records remaining fully discoverable; any restriction on searchability, however framed, risks becoming a slippery slope toward selective erasure of inconvenient judicial history. Reading: The Court's de-indexing-not-erasure formula is a genuinely proportionate compromise — records remain intact and retrievable by anyone with a legitimate purpose, while casual, reputation-damaging name searches are moderated. The harder question, left for future litigation, is where exactly the line sits between "no longer serving a legitimate public purpose" and matters of continuing public interest, such as convictions in cases of public significance. Probability Meter UPSC Pre 58% UPSC Mains 82% CLAT 86% Judiciary 88% Interview 76% Prelims Trap Card Trap MCQ: "The right to be forgotten in India is enforced under a dedicated statute enacted pursuant to the Puttaswamy judgment." This is FALSE. India has no dedicated statute governing the right to be forgotten; it was judicially recognised as a facet of Article 21 by the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav (2026), building on Puttaswamy (2017). Lock in: Right to be forgotten = judge-made, Article 21-rooted, remedy is de-indexing/masking (not erasure of the record). Distinguish from the DPDP Act 2023's narrower "right to erasure" of personal data held by fiduciaries — a statutory right, but of much narrower scope. 21 Life & Personal Liberty Constitutional root of the ruling 144 Pages Of Judgment Delivered May 29, 2026 2 Core Remedies De-indexing and masking The Privacy Docket · Where India's "Right To Be Forgotten" Stands DPDP Act, 2023 (Sec. 20) Narrow "erasure" right Piecemeal HC orders (pre-2026) Case-by-case only Puttaswamy (2017) Privacy as Art. 21 right Laksh Vir Singh Yadav (2026) General doctrine + enforcement Indicative sequence, not a quantified metric — bar widths denote relative doctrinal reach as reported by Verdictum, SCC Online and Supreme Court Observer commentary. Three Reader Lenses ★ Lawyer's Brief For clients seeking de-indexing relief, frame petitions around the absence of continuing legitimate public purpose — cite acquittal, discharge, quashing, or settlement — and seek de-indexing/masking rather than deletion, since the Court has signalled a preference for the least restrictive remedy. ¶ UPSC / Judiciary Capsule Build the chain: Article 21 (Puttaswamy, privacy) → informational self-determination → right to be forgotten (Laksh Vir Singh Yadav) → proportionality test against open justice → de-indexing as the least-restrictive remedy (citing Hurbain v. Belgium). ♣ Citizen's Lens If old, resolved legal proceedings continue to surface in name-based internet searches years after acquittal or settlement, individuals now have a constitutional basis to seek de-indexing — a meaningful, if narrow, digital-dignity remedy. Counsel Scorecard · Week's Appearances Who Argued What, And How It Landed For petitioners Delhi HC · Right to be Forgotten Senior Advocates Akhil Sibal, Arvind Nigam and Trideep Pais argued for de-indexing and masking of judicial records in acquittal, quashing and settlement matters; the Court granted the relief across the batch. Allowed For Union of India / Google / IndianKanoon Delhi HC Senior Advocates Saurabh Seth and Ajit Warrier, with CGSCs, resisted a blanket erasure remedy; the Court's narrower de-indexing formula , rather than deletion, reflected this concern for institutional record-keeping. Partly Persuasive For Prajwala (petitioner NGO) SC · Victim Protection Plan Two-decade-old petition seeking a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan for trafficking survivors; the Court issued detailed binding directions covering rescue through rehabilitation. Allowed Petitioner SC · Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India Argued forum non conveniens should not defeat a writ petition under Article 226; the Court agreed on principle but held the doctrine applied on the specific facts, transferring the matter. Mixed Respondent authorities Allahabad HC · Sushma Devi v. State of U.P. Defended a Lok Adalat/DLSA-brokered "settlement" purporting to dissolve a marriage; the Court rejected the defence , holding Lok Adalats lack jurisdiction to grant divorce. Rejected CBI Mumbai Sessions Court · Bank Fraud Sought custody of former Reliance ADAG executive in a bank-fraud probe; the Court allowed the arrest to proceed on June 1. Granted 3 Sentence Revision Note What happened: The Delhi High Court, in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India , recognised the "right to be forgotten" as flowing from informational privacy under Article 21 and ordered search engines and Indian Kanoon to de-index and mask judicial records in qualifying cases, even as markets absorbed an IT-led rebound and the Supreme Court's strength rose to 37 judges. The principle: open justice requires that records exist and remain accessible to those with legitimate purpose, but does not require unrestricted, perpetual, name-based digital amplification — de-indexing is the least restrictive way to reconcile the two. For your citation file: Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2026:DHC:4891, May 29, 2026), building on Puttaswamy (2017) and citing Hurbain v. Belgium (ECHR Grand Chamber). Self-Check Quiz · 3 Questions Did You Read The Lead Carefully? Q1. In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India , the Delhi High Court held that the right to be forgotten flows from — A The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 B Informational privacy under Article 21 C Article 19(1)(a) D The Information Technology Act, 2000 Answer: B. The Court held that the right to be forgotten flows naturally and necessarily from informational privacy protected under Article 21, extending Puttaswamy (2017). Q2. What remedy did the Court prefer over outright deletion of judicial records? A Full erasure from all platforms B De-indexing and masking C Sealing the entire case file D Criminal prosecution of search engines Answer: B. The Court preferred de-indexing (restricting name-based search retrieval) and masking (substituting names with neutral identifiers), preserving full records for institutional purposes. Q3. What powered the afternoon market rebound on June 2, 2026? A A 4.2% surge in Nifty IT stocks B A surge in Nifty Pharma C A rate cut by the RBI D A surge in Nifty Auto Answer: A. The Nifty IT index surged 4.2% intraday, led by TCS (+6.7%) and Infosys (+5.6%), powering the afternoon rebound after a weak morning open. Topic of the Day · Beyond the News The Supreme Court's "Victim Protection Plan": Reading Prajwala v. Union Of India In Full A closer look at the two-decade-old litigation that produced India's first comprehensive judicial framework for trafficking survivors — and why the Court declined to create a new investigation agency while still reshaping how rescue, custody and rehabilitation work on the ground. When the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Prajwala v. Union of India on May 29, 2026, it closed a chapter that had opened more than two decades earlier — the Hyderabad-based anti-trafficking organisation Prajwala had first petitioned the Court in 2004, arguing that victims of commercial sexual exploitation were treated as criminals rather than survivors, and that the absence of a comprehensive "Victim Protection Plan" made rescue and rehabilitation efforts structurally ineffective. A 2015 order had disposed of that petition on the strength of government commitments to establish an Organised Crime Investigation Agency and an Inter-Ministerial Committee to draft anti-trafficking legislation — commitments that, as the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noted with some evident frustration, never materialised. Draft Bills prepared in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2021 either lapsed or were never tabled; the proposed investigation agency was quietly dropped in favour of empowering the National Investigation Agency in 2019. Art. 21 + 23 Constitutional Anchor Rehabilitation held to be a constitutional right, not mere policy — flowing from a combined reading of the right to dignity and the prohibition on trafficking. 2004→2026 22-Year Litigation The petition first filed by Prajwala took over two decades to yield a comprehensive judicial framework, after repeated non-implementation of government commitments. Sec. 7, 8, 20 ITPA Provisions Flagged The Court urged Parliament to amend these Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act provisions, which currently expose trafficking victims themselves to prosecution. The Court's central doctrinal move was to hold that rehabilitation is not a matter of governmental grace or discretionary welfare policy, but "an integral component of the constitutional guarantee of a life with dignity" under Article 21, read together with Article 23's prohibition on trafficking in human beings. The Bench extended the reasoning of the Court's earlier bonded-labour jurisprudence — particularly Bandhua Mukti Morcha and Neerja Choudhary (1984) — to hold that identifying and freeing a trafficking victim is not enough; rehabilitation must follow as a matter of constitutional entitlement. "There is no basis, in law or in reason," the Bench observed, "to hold that it applies to bonded labourers but not to victims trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation." This is a significant doctrinal extension because it treats trafficking survivors not as passive recipients of state charity but as rights-holders with an enforceable claim to a structured rehabilitation process. The most operationally significant part of the judgment addresses Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — the provision governing what happens to a person removed from a brothel during a police raid. The Court observed that the existing framework treats three very different categories of women identically: those trafficked into sex work against their will, those originally trafficked but who have since continued in sex work by choice, and those who entered sex work voluntarily from the outset. A "one-size-fits-all approach," the Bench held, risks becoming counterproductive and may itself violate the rights and dignity it purports to protect. Accordingly, the Court directed that magistrates must conduct an inquiry to identify voluntary adult sex workers — for whom the question of "rescue" simply does not arise — and that a victim's own consent must be the primary and governing consideration in decisions about detention in a protective home or reintegration with family, except where there are recorded, specific concerns about coercion or safety. The comprehensive Victim Protection Plan itself covers every stage of the process: anti-human trafficking units are to be headed by DySP-rank officers and notified as police stations for registering and investigating cases; victims are not to be arrested, verbally or physically abused, or photographed in identity-revealing ways during rescue operations; post-rescue, they cannot be held in police lock-ups overnight, must receive legal aid and counselling, and must be produced before appropriate authorities without delay; and protective homes are directed to abandon carceral, prison-like conditions in favour of individual case-worker assignments, care plans covering healthcare and livelihood support, and mechanisms to report abuse within the homes themselves. Notably, the Court declined to direct the creation of a dedicated Organised Crime Investigation Agency — the one 2015 commitment that had never been honoured — instead urging Parliament to amend Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the ITPA, which currently expose victims themselves to criminal prosecution, and to enact a comprehensive standalone anti-trafficking law. For the aspirant, the high-value answer on this ruling should note three things beyond the headline "right to rehabilitation": first, the Court's extension of bonded-labour jurisprudence to a new category of exploited persons; second, the granular, stage-by-stage Victim Protection Plan that operates as binding law until Parliament legislates; and third, the Court's calibrated restraint in declining to mandate an institutional structure — the OCIA — that successive governments had already shown an inability to build, opting instead for legislative amendment as the more durable path forward. Reader Poll · Vote To See Results Should India's "right to be forgotten" extend beyond judicial records to news archives and social media? Yes — the same dignity logic should apply broadly 41% No — press archives serve a distinct public-interest function 34% Only via a codified statute, not case-by-case judicial orders 21% No view 4% Click any option to reveal the indicative reader split. Tomorrow's poll question will track the RBI's upcoming June policy decision. Bare Act of the Day · Annotated Article 21 of the Constitution of India The provision underlying both of today's landmark rulings — privacy-as-dignity and rehabilitation-as-dignity. 21. Protection of life and personal liberty — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. [Note: Judicially expanded far beyond its textual brevity to include privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017), the right to be forgotten (Laksh Vir Singh Yadav, 2026), and now a right to rehabilitation for trafficking victims (Prajwala, 2026) — each an instance of the Article 21 "penumbra" doctrine at work.] The Textual Core A sparse eighteen words that the Court has read to encompass dignity, privacy, health, a clean environment, and now informational self-determination and rehabilitation. The Puttaswamy Foundation The nine-judge 2017 ruling anchored privacy — and by extension the right to be forgotten — as intrinsic to life and personal liberty, overruling earlier restrictive precedent. Today's Two Extensions Privacy: informational self-determination, de-indexing Dignity: rehabilitation as an enforceable right The Key Cases Puttaswamy 2017 — privacy Bandhua Mukti Morcha — bonded labour rehabilitation Laksh Vir Singh Yadav 2026 — right to be forgotten Prajwala 2026 — trafficking rehabilitation Today's Connection Both landmark May-June rulings use Article 21 as the doctrinal engine — one for digital dignity, one for post-rescue dignity — illustrating the provision's continuing expansion. Drafting Tip for Aspirants When answering on Article 21's expansion, always cite the textual brevity first, then trace the judicial "unenumerated rights" method through at least three generations of case law. ◆ PYQ Connector, UPSC Prelims on the scope of Article 21; UPSC Mains GS II on the judicial expansion of fundamental rights; CLAT on privacy jurisprudence; Judicial Services on the doctrine of continuing mandamus and unenumerated rights. Tap To Flip · Flashcards Tap (or hover) each card to reveal the answer. Built for one-week retention of today's content. Flashcard 1 Which case recognised the "right to be forgotten" as a facet of Article 21? Tap to flip Answer Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (Delhi HC, May 29, 2026); ordered de-indexing and masking, not erasure. Flashcard 2 Which Articles ground the Supreme Court's "right to rehabilitation" for trafficking victims? Tap to flip Answer Articles 21 and 23 — dignity/personal liberty read with the prohibition on trafficking ( Prajwala v. Union of India , May 29, 2026). Flashcard 3 Where did the Sensex and Nifty close on June 2, 2026? Tap to flip Answer Sensex 74,649.84 (+382.50, +0.52%); Nifty 23,483.55 (+100.95, +0.43%) — snapping a four-day losing streak. Flashcard 4 What is the Supreme Court's working strength after June 2, 2026? Tap to flip Answer 37 judges , after five new judges were sworn in, following the sanctioned-strength increase from 33 to 37 (excluding the CJI). Flashcard 5 What was India's IIP growth for April 2026, and under what data series? Tap to flip Answer 4.9% , the first print under a rebased 2022-23 series (from 2011-12), released June 1, 2026. Flashcard 6 Which stock rose nearly 6% on June 2 after an AI-editorial partnership announcement? Tap to flip Answer Infosys , after partnering with Germany's Handelsblatt Media Group to launch an AI-powered editorial engine. 25 HC Pulse · Daily Recurring ⏱ 5 min scan The 25 HC Pulse · Every Major High Court · June 2, 2026 A Tuesday working-day spread. The Delhi High Court's right-to-be-forgotten ruling continued to dominate legal commentary a week after delivery; several other courts processed matters flowing from the Supreme Court's own privacy and trafficking rulings. Note: headline-order entries reflect reportable matters; many courts had standard, non-headline working dockets. All-India HC Pulse Date: June 2, 2026 · Source: LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, SCC Online, HC sites High Court Matter Key Order / Observation Tag Delhi Right to be Forgotten follow-up Continued compliance monitoring in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India , with MEITY directed to file a compliance affidavit on platform de-indexing; routine writ docket otherwise. Const/Privacy Calcutta ChatGPT/OpenAI IP matter Single Judge in Indiamart Inter Mesh Ltd. v. Open AI Inc. dismissed an interim application alleging disparagement and dilution, holding the right to trade cannot be dictated by a third party. IP/Commercial Allahabad Lok Adalat/divorce jurisdiction In Sushma Devi v. State of U.P. , held that neither Lok Adalat nor DLSA has authority to grant a divorce decree; criticised DLSA for mechanically approving illegal remarriage terms. Family Law Madras Service/writ docket Routine service and writ docket; no major reportable headline order on June 2. Service Bombay Reliance ADAG bank-fraud follow-up Registry tracking follow-up proceedings after the CBI-sanctioned arrest of a former Reliance ADAG executive in a bank-fraud case on June 1; routine commercial docket otherwise. Criminal Gujarat Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Karnataka Motor accident compensation In Boopalan J. v. Orien Precast (P) Ltd. , Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju enhanced compensation in a fatal motor-accident case after reassessing age, salary and accident-report evidence. Civil Kerala PoSH Act / disability pension Continued application of the ruling that an institution's Director falls within the PoSH Act's "employee" definition; disability-pension precedent for Army personnel also in play. Civil Punjab & Haryana Routine service docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Service Telangana Routine service docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Service Rajasthan Criminal investigation directions In Sumann Mundhara v. State of Rajasthan , held that a criminal court does not become functus officio after ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC/175(3) BNSS; directed report within 6 weeks. Criminal Madhya Pradesh Maintenance enhancement In Madhu v. Hemendra Kumar , enhanced maintenance for a government servant's wife and minor daughter, holding daughters cannot be discriminated against relative to sons in educational support. Family Law Patna Routine criminal docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Criminal Jharkhand Routine civil docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Chhattisgarh Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Orissa Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Gauhati Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Andhra Pradesh Routine writ docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Writ Sikkim Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Manipur Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Meghalaya Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Tripura Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Uttarakhand Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Civil Himachal Pradesh Collegium follow-up Judicial officers awaiting elevation as additional judges pursuant to Supreme Court Collegium recommendations dated June 2; routine docket otherwise. Service J&K and Ladakh Routine docket No major reportable headline order on June 2. Service Docket Heatmap · Where The Pressure Is Today State-by-state visualisation of reportable headline / carry-over matters around June 2, 2026. A routine working Tuesday. Delhi 1 RTBF follow-up Uttar Pradesh 1 Lok Adalat/divorce West Bengal 1 ChatGPT/OpenAI IP Rajasthan 1 Criminal investigation Tamil Nadu 0 Routine Karnataka 1 MACT enhancement Kerala 0 Routine Maharashtra 1 ADAG follow-up Madhya Pradesh 1 Maintenance enhanced Bihar 0 Routine Assam 0 Routine Gujarat 0 Routine Headline / live matter Notable docket item No reportable headline Tribunal Wire · Daily Recurring ⏱ 4 min scan Tribunal Wire · NCLAT, ITAT, SEBI, NGT, IBBI & CCI Quasi-Judicial Daily Wire Date: June 2, 2026 · Source: Tribunal sites, LiveLaw Biz, regulator portals Forum Matter Order / Development Why It Matters IBBI Personal Guarantor Regulations Notified the IBBI (Bankruptcy Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2026, and companion amendments to insolvency resolution process rules for personal guarantors. Streamlines personal-guarantor bankruptcy timelines. NGT Contaminated municipal water supply In Suyash Kumar Mishra v. Union of India , directed Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat to address discoloured, foul-smelling municipal tap water in Noida, Indore, Gandhinagar, Pune and Bengaluru and file an action-taken report. Cross-city environmental compliance push. UPERC Cross-border hydro power Approved UPPCL's long-term procurement of 511 MW hydro power from Bhutan's Khorlochhu project via Tata Power Trading Company, citing peak-summer demand and tariff certainty. Cross-border energy security precedent. ATFP (PMLA Appellate Tribunal) FIEWIN online-gaming fraud Held that PMLA adjudication proceedings are not rendered redundant by a prior confiscation order in the Special Court; dismissed the appeal in the FIEWIN case. Clarifies PMLA adjudication-confiscation sequencing. NCLT / NCLAT Routine CIRP admissions and appeals Standard bench-level disposals continued; certified-copy compliance scrutiny in IBC appeals remains per settled Supreme Court practice. Mandatory checklist for IBC counsel. ITAT Routine reassessment docket Standard bench-level disposals in Section 147/68 reassessment matters; no major reportable headline on June 2. Tax practitioners watch precedent flow. CCI Routine competition docket No major reportable headline order on June 2; standard-essential-patent jurisprudence remains layered through pending appellate analysis. Competition–IP boundary live. SEBI NHPC OFS compliance Monitoring the Centre's Offer for Sale of up to 6% stake in NHPC, floor price ₹71/share, launched June 2 to institutional investors ahead of the retail tranche. Capital-markets disinvestment compliance. Listed Tomorrow · Wednesday, June 3, 2026 What's In The Court Calendars, And Why It Matters RBI MPC policy meeting countdown. The RBI's June Monetary Policy Committee meeting, scheduled for June 5, remains the week's key macro event, with most economists expecting the repo rate to hold at 5.25%. Watch: Guidance on inflation and monsoon risk. Delhi HC Right to Be Forgotten compliance. MEITY's compliance affidavit on platform-level de-indexing under Laksh Vir Singh Yadav remains due; watch for further masking applications before originating courts. Watch: Scope of the compliance affidavit. NHPC / SEBI OFS retail tranche. Following the institutional tranche of the government's 6% NHPC stake sale, the retail investor window is expected to open shortly. Watch: Subscription levels at the ₹71 floor price. Markets Follow-through on the IT-led rally. Watch for whether Tuesday's afternoon rebound sustains into Wednesday, particularly given continuing uncertainty over US-Iran talks and crude-price direction. CBSE Class XII re-evaluation portal. The CBSE's verification and re-evaluation portal, delayed at its June 1 launch, is expected to stabilise; continuing scrutiny of the board's On-Screen Marking system remains live. Today's SC & Significant Court Developments · Expandable Deep Dive Click each item to read the full analysis. All four were significant in the week opening June 2026. Privacy Law Item 1 · Delhi HC Recognises The Right To Be Forgotten Under Article 21 In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India , Justice Sachin Datta held that the right to be forgotten is a constitutional facet of informational privacy under Article 21, directing de-indexing, delinking and masking of judicial records in cases involving acquittals, quashed proceedings, settlements and matrimonial disputes. The Court distinguished de-indexing (moderating name-based search retrieval) from erasure (which it declined to order), holding the former the least restrictive, most proportionate remedy consistent with open justice. The ruling gives India its first general constitutional doctrine on the right to be forgotten, filling a gap left by the narrower statutory "right to erasure" under the DPDP Act, 2023, and creating an enforcement mechanism via a MEITY compliance affidavit. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India · Delhi HC, 2026:DHC:4891, May 29, 2026 Trafficking Law Item 2 · Supreme Court's Victim Protection Plan For Trafficking Survivors In Prajwala v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation have a constitutional right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23, and issued a detailed, binding "Victim Protection Plan" covering rescue, custody, rehabilitation and reintegration. The Court declined to mandate creation of a new investigation agency, instead urging Parliament to amend Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and enact standalone anti-trafficking legislation. Resolving a petition first filed in 2004, the ruling represents one of the most detailed judicial interventions into anti-trafficking policy in Indian constitutional history, extending bonded-labour rehabilitation jurisprudence to a new category of survivors. Prajwala v. Union of India · Supreme Court, May 29, 2026 Markets Item 3 · IT-Led Rally Snaps Four-Day Losing Streak On June 2, 2026, the Sensex closed up 382.50 points (+0.52%) at 74,649.84 and the Nifty rose 100.95 points (+0.43%) to 23,483.55, snapping a four-day losing streak after a weak, monsoon-anxious morning open. A 4.2% single-day surge in the Nifty IT index — led by TCS (+6.7%) and Infosys (+5.6%, on an AI-editorial partnership with Handelsblatt) — powered the afternoon rebound, while NTPC, Axis Bank and Power Grid featured among the laggards. Analysts attributed the recovery to easing Middle East tensions after President Trump's overnight comments on US-Iran talks, alongside a 1.5% dip in Brent crude to $93.45/bbl; FIIs remained net sellers while DIIs continued as steady net buyers. BSE/NSE close · June 2, 2026 Judiciary Item 4 · Supreme Court's Working Strength Rises To 37 Chief Justice Surya Kant administere