Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice to the Union Government of India on a batch of writ petitions challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, including the amendment made to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A Three Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi noted that the issues warrant authoritative consideration and directed that the matters be placed before a larger Bench (a five-judge Bench).

The challenges have been instituted by (i) RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak, (ii) The Reporters' Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and (iii) National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI).

Also Read: SC Declines Article 32 Challenge to ECI’s “Logical Discrepancy” Tag in West Bengal Electoral Roll Revision; Grants Liberty to Represent Before Commission

At the core of the challenge is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The petitioners contend that the amendment removes the earlier public-interest balancing framework and results in a broad exemption for "personal information," thereby diluting transparency and accountability mechanisms under RTI.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed: "There's an element of sensitivity...both sides will have arguable points...sometimes the bench is so conscious of such things..." On the nature of the controversy, the Bench described it as "complex but interesting" and involving the "fundamental rights of both sides." The Chief Justice further remarked that "some ironing out of the creases might be needed to strike a balance."

Although an interim stay was pressed, the Bench declined to stay the operation of the statutory provisions at this stage. The Chief Justice stated: "No question of stay," adding, "Through interim order, we will not introduce a regime which Parliament has thought of..." Appearing for Nayak, Advocate Vrinda Grover urged proportionality, submitting that "instead of using a chisel, they have used a sledgehammer".

For NCPRI, Advocate Prashant Bhushan relied on the privacy–transparency balance discussed in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal line of cases; the Bench, however, indicated that the cited precedent did not directly address the amended scope of Section 8(1)(j) as now arising for consideration.

Also Read: Pre-Arrest Bail Not Maintainable After Arrest And Release On Transit Bail; Remedy Lies In Seeking Regular Bail: Kerala High Court

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for The Reporters' Collective and Nitin Sethi.

In addition to the RTI-linked amendment, The Reporters' Collective and Nitin Sethi have also assailed Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, contending that these provisions confer expansive powers upon the Central Government to seek information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries, allegedly without adequate safeguards.

The petitions also raise concerns regarding the institutional independence of the Data Protection Board framework, including the appointment process for its Chairperson and members.

Case Titles:

1. Venkatesh Nayak v Union of India

   Case No: W.P.(C) No. 177/2026
   

2. National Campaign for People's Right to Information v Union of India

   Case No: W.P.(C) No. 212/2026
   

3. The Reporters Collective Trust & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.
   
   Case No: W.P.(C) No. 211/2026