Today, On 16th February, The Supreme Court of India refused to stay the RTI Act amendment made through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging its constitutional validity.
The Supreme Court decided not to stay the amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act brought about by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
This amendment restricts the disclosure of personal information, even when there are grounds of larger public interest.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, indicated that the issue is sensitive and involves balancing competing interests.
CJI Kant remarked,
“We have to iron out the creases and lay down what is personal information,”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Pleas on Bringing Political Parties Under RTI Act in April
The Court added,
“It is a complex and sensitive issue and interesting because it touches upon fundamental rights on both sides,”
Regarding a request for a stay on the amendment, the Court stated that it cannot impede a legal framework established by Parliament without a thorough examination of the case.
The Bench mentioned,
“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 Court was hearing petitions from The Reporters Collective, lawyer Aakarsh Kamra, and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
The Reporters Collective has challenged the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, along with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, both in their entirety and regarding specific provisions.
The challenge focuses on sections related to consent, processing obligations, government access to data, amendments to the RTI Act, and the establishment of the Data Protection Board.
Petitioners argue that the framework announced in November 2025 notably shifts the balance between privacy, transparency, and freedom of speech.
A key part of the challenge involves Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which modifies Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The original RTI Act allowed for the disclosure of personal information when it served a larger public interest, while the DPDP Act prohibits such disclosures.
The petition claims that the amendment allows public authorities to refuse information on the grounds of it being “personal,” even if it has significant relevance to public accountability or activity.
Petitioners contend that this undermines the right to information and freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) without meeting the stipulations outlined in Article 19(2).
Additionally, they argue that the DPDP Act does not include exemptions for processing personal data for public interest or journalistic reasons. Investigative journalism, often reliant on RTI disclosures, whistleblowers, and citizen-sourced information, demands the collection, storage, and use of personal data, they state.
By imposing notice, consent, and erasure requirements on these activities, along with potential penalties, the law creates burdensome compliance challenges for journalists, civil society members, and citizens involved in public accountability efforts, according to the petitioners.
Another aspect of the challenge targets Section 36 of the Act in conjunction with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, which grants the Central government the authority to request information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries. Petitioners claim these provisions are vague and overly broad, allowing unreasonable access to personal data and violating Articles 14, 19, and 21.
They further argue that this framework could hinder individuals from accessing information regarding disclosures of their data to government bodies.
The petition also raises concerns about the structure of the Data Protection Board, particularly regarding executive control over appointments, and argues that the Board’s penalties could have a chilling effect on speech and journalistic endeavors.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, represented the petitioners.