SC To Weigh RTI Changes Under Data Law

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. However, the apex court declined to grant an interim stay on the challenged provisions, observing that it would not stall a regime introduced by Parliament without first hearing the matter. The case has been listed for hearing in March.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice to the Centre on petitions questioning certain provisions of the DPDP Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, particularly those amending provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The court also referred three petitions, filed by Venkatesh Nayak on behalf of digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective, journalist Nitin Sethi and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, to a larger bench.

The petitions raise concerns over the “fiduciary” clauses that allow the Central government to requisition data from any data fiduciary at its discretion.

The bench observed that the matter involves “complex and sensitive issues” requiring a balance between two competing fundamental rights, the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy.

The Chief Justice remarked that the court would need to “iron out the creases” and clarify what constitutes personal information.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, referred to the landmark Subhash Agarwal judgment, arguing that the Supreme Court had already laid down a framework for balancing transparency and privacy. The court, however, observed that the new legislative framework warranted a fresh and deeper examination.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for a petitioner, sought to make additional submissions, but the court proceeded to issue notice to obtain a comprehensive response from the Centre.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover contended that the legislation adopts an excessive approach. “Instead of using a chisel, it has used a hammer and has thus delivered a body blow,” she argued, submitting that the amendments effectively weaken transparency safeguards.

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

Prior to the amendment, such information could be disclosed if an overriding public interest was established.

One petition argues that the new provision undermines citizens’ right to information and transparency in public administration. It states that journalists and transparency activists often rely on limited access to personal information in public-interest contexts to expose wrongdoing, corruption or conflicts of interest.

By removing the public interest safeguard, the amended provision tilts the balance decisively in favour of privacy at the expense of accountability, the petition contends.