SC issues notice to Centre on plea challenging 2023 data protection law

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 16) issued notice to the Centre on a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi declined to stay the law at this stage, making it clear that it would not “thwart a regime introduced by Parliament unless we hear the case.”

The petitions contest specific provisions of the DPDP Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, particularly in relation to changes made to the Right to Information Act.

The bench also directed that three petitions-filed by Venkatesh Nayak on behalf of the digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective, journalist Nitin Sethi, and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)- be placed before a larger bench for consideration.

Concerns over the 'fiduciary' clauses

The pleas raised concerns over the "fiduciary" clauses, which allow the central government to requisition data from any data fiduciary (any person, company, or government entity that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data) at its discretion.

Also Read: Why Sanchar Saathi mandate sparked privacy, surveillance concerns

Stating that the matter pertained to "complex and sensitive issues," the bench said that it involved balancing two competing sets of fundamental rights, the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy.

"This is about balancing competing interests. We have to iron out the creases and lay down what constitutes personal information," the CJI said.

‘A deeper examination required’

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for one of the petitioners, pointed to the landmark Subhash Agarwal judgment, asserting that the apex court had already established a framework for balancing RTI and privacy.

Also Read: DPDP Rules ‘cripple RTI, endanger press freedom’: Editors Guild, DigiPub

However, the bench noted that the new legislative framework required a fresh, deeper examination.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for one of the petitioners, sought to make additional submissions, but the court proceeded to issue notice to ensure a comprehensive response from the Centre.

Posted for hearing in March

The Court has scheduled the matter for a hearing in March. Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing in the matter, contended that the legislation has taken an excessive approach.

"Instead of using a chisel, it has used a hammer and has thus rendered a body blow," she submitted, arguing that the amendments effectively undermine transparency safeguards.

Also Read: Big tech may see faster DPDP rules compliance timeline

The petitioners have essentially challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, giving a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information.

Before the amendment, personal information could have been disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.

‘New provision undermines right to information’

One of the pleas said that the new provision undermines citizens' right to information and transparency in public administration.

It said that journalists and transparency activists frequently rely on access to personal information in limited, public-interest contexts to expose wrongdoing, corruption, or conflicts of interest.

By eliminating the public interest override, the amended provision allegedly tilts the balance decisively in favour of privacy at the cost of accountability.

(With agency inputs)