What Happened
- The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central Government on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025.
- The PIL was filed by advocate Chandresh Jain (Chandresh Jain v. Union of India).
- A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard the matter.
- The petition challenges Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 44 of the DPDP Act, 2023 along with Rules 17-23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025.
- Core arguments: The DPDP Act creates a closed loop of executive power where the Data Protection Board (first adjudicator) and TDSAT (appellate authority) both remain under executive control, while Section 39 bars civil court jurisdiction.
- Section 17 permits broad government exemptions from core data protection obligations on grounds of sovereignty, security, and public order.
- Section 37 allows blocking of non-compliant platforms without adequate hearing.
- Section 44 amends the Right to Information Act, 2005, restricting disclosure of personal information of public interest.
- Separately, on 16 February 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice in The Reporters Collective Trust v. Union of India, referring core questions about the DPDP Act's amendment to the RTI Act to a larger bench.
- The Court directed the Ministry of Law and Justice, MeitY, and DoPT to file their responses.
Static Topic Bridges
Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that informational privacy (the ability of an individual to control the dissemination of personal information) forms a core component of the right to privacy. Any restriction on this right must satisfy the three-part test: (1) it must be backed by law, (2) it must serve a legitimate state aim, and (3) it must be proportionate to the objective sought.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Nine-judge bench, right to privacy under Article 21
- Three-part proportionality test: legality, legitimate aim, proportionality
- Overruled M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) which had denied privacy as a fundamental right
- Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty
Connection to this news: The PIL argues that the DPDP Act's broad executive exemptions under Section 17, the absence of meaningful consent mechanisms, and opaque blocking powers under Section 37 fail the Puttaswamy proportionality test, thereby violating the right to informational privacy under Article 21.
Separation of Powers and Independent Adjudication
Article 50 of the Constitution (Directive Principle) mandates that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) held that tribunals must possess the same independence and impartiality as the courts they substitute. In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019), the Court struck down provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 that gave the executive control over tribunal appointments and terms, holding this violated judicial independence.
- Article 50: Separation of judiciary from executive (DPSP)
- Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010): Tribunals must mirror court independence
- Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019): Executive control over tribunals struck down
- Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws
- Section 39 of DPDP Act bars civil court jurisdiction entirely
Connection to this news: The petition argues that with both the Data Protection Board and TDSAT under executive control, and Section 39 barring civil courts, the DPDP Act creates an adjudicatory structure that violates Article 50, Article 14, and the principles laid down in R. Gandhi and Rojer Mathew.
Right to Information and Transparency
The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to give effect to the fundamental right to information implicit in Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) held that the people have a right to know every public act by public functionaries. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act originally permitted disclosure of personal information of public servants where larger public interest outweighed privacy. Section 44 of the DPDP Act, 2023 amended this provision, removing the public interest override and broadening the exemption for personal information.
- RTI Act, 2005: Operationalises Article 19(1)(a) right to information
- State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): Right to know public acts of public functionaries
- Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act: Original provision allowed disclosure if public interest outweighed privacy
- Section 44 of DPDP Act: Amends Section 8(1)(j), removes public interest override
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression includes right to information
Connection to this news: The amendment via Section 44 of the DPDP Act is challenged both in the Delhi High Court PIL and in the Supreme Court (The Reporters Collective Trust v. Union of India) as undermining the RTI framework and restricting citizens' right to access information about public functionaries.
Key Facts & Data
- DPDP Act, 2023: Enacted 11 August 2023, received Presidential assent
- DPDP Rules, 2025: Notified by MeitY to operationalise the Act
- Sections challenged: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 44
- Rules challenged: Rules 17-23
- PIL filed by: Advocate Chandresh Jain
- Bench: CJ Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia (Delhi HC)
- Constitutional provisions invoked: Articles 14, 19, 21, and 50
- Parallel SC case: The Reporters Collective Trust v. Union of India (notice issued 16 February 2026)
- Section 39: Complete bar on civil court jurisdiction
- Section 44: Amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005