Complex issue, no stay: Supreme Court on challenge to data protection law amendment of RTI Act

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay the amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which bars the disclosure of personal information even on grounds of larger public interest..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi said that the matter involves a sensitive issue and is about balancing competing interests. "We have to iron out the creases and lay down what is personal information," CJI Kant remarked."It is a complex and sensitive issue and interesting because it touches upon fundamental rights on both sides," the Court added..On an application seeking a stay on the amendment, the Court said that it cannot thwart a regime introduced by parliament unless it hears the case."We will decide at the earliest...matter will be placed before a larger bench as decided by the CJI. List on a miscellaneous day in March," the Bench said..The Court was hearing petitions by The Reporters Collective, lawyer Aakarsh Kamra and National Campaign for People's Right to Information.Reporters Collective has challenged the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, both as a whole and in respect of specific provisions. The challenge focuses on sections dealing with consent, processing obligations, government access to data, amendments to the RTI Act and the constitution of the Data Protection Board. According to the petitioners, the framework notified in November 2025 significantly alters the balance between privacy, transparency and free speech. .A central plank of the challenge concerns Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The RTI Act provision allowed disclosure of personal information in larger public interest, but the DPDP Act bars it.As per the plea, the amendment permits public authorities to withhold information on the ground that it is “personal” even where it bears a substantial connection to public activity or accountability.According to the petitioners, this disproportionately curtails the right to information and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) without satisfying the requirements of Article 19(2).Further, as per the petitioners, the DPDP Act contains no exemption for processing personal data for public interest or journalistic purposes. Investigative reporting, particularly when based on RTI disclosures, whistleblowers and citizen-sourced material, necessarily involves the collection, storage and use of personal data, the plea states.By subjecting such activity to notice, consent and erasure requirements, along with the risk of penalties, the law imposes onerous compliance burdens on journalists, civil society actors and citizens engaged in public accountability work, the petitioners have contended..A separate challenge is directed at Section 36 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, which empower the Central government to call for information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries. The petitioners' case is that these provisions are vague and over-broad, facilitate unreasonable access to personal data and infringe Articles 14, 19 and 21. They further contend that the framework may prevent individuals from learning about disclosures of their data to government agencies.The petition also questions the institutional structure of the Data Protection Board. It concerns regarding executive control over appointments and argues that the Board’s penalty regime could have a chilling effect on speech and journalistic activity. .Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi along with Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover argued for the petitioners..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.