'Some Creases To Be Ironed Out,' Supreme Court Refers Pleas Challenging DPDP Act Amendment To RTI Act To Larger Bench

The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Union Government on the pleas challenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 over their amendment of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Agreeing that the issue required consideration, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi referred the matter to a larger bench.

The bench was dealing with three writ petitions - one filed by Venkatesh Nayak, another by digital news platform The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the third one filed by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). The petitioners have essentially challenged to the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amending 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.

CJI Surya Kant said, "There's an element of sensitivity...both sides will have arguable points...sometimes the bench is so conscious of such things..."

Advocate Vrinda Grover for petitioner Venkatesh Nayak raised the issue of proportionality, by submitting that "instead of using a chisel, they have used a sledgehammer".

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the NCPRI, submitted that the provision had a balance, as held by in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case. The bench however said that Subhash Chandra Agarwal did not directly consider Section 8(1)(j).

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for The Reporters Collective.

CJI said that the issue was "complex but interesting" and touching upon the "fundamental rights of both sides." CJI said that "some ironing out of the creases might be needed to strike a balance."

Bhushan submitted that an application for stay has also been filed. However, the bench was categorical in saying that there won't be any stay of the legislation. "No question of stay," CJI Kant stated. "Through interim order, we will not introduce a regime which Parliament has thought of..." CJI Kant said.

According to the petitioners, the amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act removes the earlier balancing test that allowed disclosure of personal information if it was related to public activity or public interest. They argue that the new regime effectively bars disclosure of personal information altogether, regardless of whether larger public interest justifies such disclosure. This, the plea claims, undermines citizens' right to information and transparency in public administration.

The petition reportedly submits 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.

Similarly, the NCPRI challenges the amendments made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through the DPDT Act.

Expansive Powers To Central Government

The Reporters Collective and Nitin Sethi assail Section 36 of the DPDP Act read with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, which empower the Central Government to call for information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries.

It is contended that these provisions authorize unreasonable digital searches and enable the gathering and storage of personal data without adequate safeguards, thereby violating Article 21. The petitioners describe Section 36 as vague, overbroad and arbitrary, infringing Articles 14 and 19 as well.

They argue that to the extent individuals may not be informed about disclosure of their personal data to a government agency, the provisions also impede their freedom of speech and expression. According to them, these intrusions are not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Independence Of Data Protection Board Questioned

The constitutional challenge also extends to the institutional framework under the Act. The petitioners raise concerns about the independence of the Data Protection Board, particularly the process for appointment of its Chairperson and members, which is alleged to be susceptible to executive control.

The petitioners have sought to declare the whole of the DPDP Act, 2023 as unconstitutional, specifically Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 36 and 44(3), for being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. They have also challenged Rules 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 23 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to be void, inoperative and unconstitutional.

The petition of "The Reporters Collective" was drawn by Advocates Apar Gupta, Muhammad Ali Khan, Indumugi C and Naman Kumar, and filed through AoR Abhishek Jebaraj. The petition of NCPRI was filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan & Rahul Gupta.

Case Title:

(1) VENKATESH NAYAK Vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 177/2026

(2) NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLES RIGHT TO INFORMATION Versus UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 212/2026

(3) THE REPORTERS COLLECTIVE TRUST AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 211/2026