Supreme Court refers data protection law amendment of RTI Act challenge to larger bench: 'No question of stay'

Supreme Court

• Supreme Court refuses to stay RTI changes under DPDP Act
• Case to be heard by a larger bench in March
• Petitioners argue amendments harm transparency and free speech

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to suspend the recent changes made to the Right to Information Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, observing that it would not stall a framework enacted by Parliament without a full hearing.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said the dispute raises competing constitutional claims and would require deeper scrutiny. The matter has now been directed to a larger Bench.

“No question of stay,” CJI Kant stated firmly when an interim pause was sought. “Through interim order, we will not introduce a regime which Parliament has thought of...”

The Court said the case would be listed on a miscellaneous day in March after being placed before the larger Bench as decided by the Chief Justice.

Balancing privacy and transparency

During the hearing, the Bench underscored the delicate balance between privacy rights and the public’s right to know. “It is a complex and sensitive issue and interesting because it touches upon fundamental rights on both sides,” the Court remarked.

CJI Kant added, “We have to iron out the creases and lay down what is personal information.”

At another point, he observed, “There's an element of sensitivity...both sides will have arguable points...sometimes the bench is so conscious of such things...”

The petitions challenge provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, particularly amendments affecting the disclosure of personal information under the RTI framework.

What is under challenge

Central to the dispute is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Earlier, personal information could be disclosed if it bore a relationship to public activity or was justified by a larger public interest.

Petitioners argue that the amendment removes this balancing approach and creates a blanket bar on releasing personal data, where public interest may demand transparency.

According to the pleas, this shift dilutes the right to information and free speech protections under Article 19(1)(a), without meeting constitutional limitations prescribed under Article 19(2).

The Court was hearing three writ petitions -- one by Venkatesh Nayak, another by The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and a third by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared alongside Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover for the petitioners.

Arguments from petitioners

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Nayak, questioned the proportionality of the legislative change, submitting that “instead of using a chisel, they have used a sledgehammer”.

Prashant Bhushan, for NCPRI, argued that the earlier legal position contained a built-in equilibrium. He referred to the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case, contending that the provision earlier maintained a balance. The Bench, however, noted that Subhash Chandra Agarwal did not directly examine Section 8(1)(j).

Petitioners contend that journalists and accountability advocates often rely on limited access to personal data in public interest contexts to reveal corruption or misconduct. By removing the public interest override, they argue, the amendment decisively favours privacy over transparency.

Concerns over government powers

Apart from the RTI amendment, The Reporters Collective and Nitin Sethi have also questioned Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 of the 2025 Rules. These provisions empower the Central Government to seek information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries.

The petitions describe these powers as vague and overly expansive, alleging that they enable unreasonable access to personal data without sufficient safeguards, thereby infringing Articles 14, 19, and 21. It is also argued that individuals may not even be informed when their data is shared with government authorities, which, according to the petitioners, affects their freedom of expression.

Challenge to institutional framework

The constitutional attack extends to the structure of the Data Protection Board established under the Act. Petitioners have raised apprehensions about executive influence in the appointment of the Chairperson and members, arguing that such control may undermine institutional independence. They further contend that the Board’s penalty provisions could have a chilling effect on journalistic activity and speech.

In addition to Section 44(3), specific provisions, including Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, 1,9 and 36 of the DPDP Act have been questioned. Several rules framed in 2025 have also been challenged as unconstitutional and void.

Larger bench to decide

While acknowledging the complexity of the issues involved, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not disrupt the operation of the statute at this stage. “We will decide at the earliest...matter will be placed before a larger bench as decided by the CJI,” the Bench said.

Calling the issue “complex but interesting,” CJI Kant said that the Court would need to carefully calibrate the competing claims before laying down the law.