The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre’s response to petitions that want certain provisions of the new data protection regime declared unconstitutional, arguing they dilute the Right to Information Act and lay the groundwork for surveillance over citizens.
While issuing the notice, however, the bench refused to stay the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, that the three petitions have challenged along with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said the matter would be examined by a “larger bench” as it involved “complex” and “sensitive” issues relating to the fundamental rights of both ordinary citizens and government officials.
“We may have to lay down what is meant by personal information,” Justice Kant orally observed while posting the next hearing to March.
“There is no question of stay...,” the bench said when advocate Prashant Bhushan sought an interim stay on the Act.
The petitions were filed by prominent RTI activist and author Venkatesh Nayak, the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRTI), and the Reporters Collective, a digital news conglomerate.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Nayak, told the bench the legislature had used a “hammer” instead of a “chisel” in the name of protecting the personal digital data of citizens andofficials.
Bhushan, representing the NCPRTI, said the new data regime would prevent citizens from accessing any information under the RTI Act on subjects relating to public office, audit reports and the utilisation of public funds, among others.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Reporters Collective, argued that the Act allowed surveillance on citizens besides impinging on the RTI Act.
The petitioners have in general requested the court to declare as unconstitutional Sections 44(3), 17(1)(c), 17(2), 33(1), and 36 of the Act and Rules 17 and 23(2) of the Rules.
They have assailed Section 4(1)(b) of the Act which, they said, makes disclosures by public authorities, as part of citizens’ right to information, a voluntary matter.
They have underlined that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act allows only limited and specific exemptions to the disclosure of information, and otherwise makes the release of information mandatory.
However, Section 44(3) of the 2023 Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to impose a blanket ban on disclosing personal information, Nayak has argued.
The petitioners have contended that the Act allows the executive to deny information to citizens by citing the personal nature of the information even for public functionaries entrusted with public duties.
They have maintained that:
- The Act puts an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech;
- Privacy is not a fundamental right available to the State;
- The Act violates Article 14 (right to equality) by equating the privacy of public functionaries to that of ordinary citizens
‘Surveillance threat’
Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2) pave the way for a surveillance regime with no safeguards or review mechanism, the petitioners have claimed.
They have objected to Section 36 saying it allows the Centre to call for any information from the Data Protection Board of India, any Data Fiduciary or any intermediary without any statutory guidance or limitation on the scope and reasons for seeking such information.