The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, while tagging it with previously pending petitions that question similar aspects of the legislation.

During the hearing, Sr Adv Indira Jaising pointed out that the Court had already issued notice in three earlier petitions challenging analogous provisions of the Act, though each petition focuses on different concerns.

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi agreed that the petitions raise overlapping issues and indicated that questions for adjudication would be formulated when the matters are taken up together for hearing.

During the hearing, counsel outlined four principal issues arising from the Act. A first concern raised during the hearing was the impact of the Act on journalistic activity, particularly the removal of the public interest exception that previously existed under the Right to Information (RTI) framework.

“Journalists are not asking for personal data. But if something is in public interest, for example relating to a public servant, there must be clarity on whether it can be accessed…That is the critical question… the Act does not clearly define what is public data and what is personal data.”

Second, it was argued that the Act allows the State to exempt itself from several of its provisions, enabling authorities to access or collect citizens’ data on broad grounds such as sovereignty or public order, which may raise concerns of potential surveillance and lack of safeguards for individual privacy.

Third, counsel submitted that the Act does not provide a direct right to compensation for individuals whose personal data is unlawfully accessed or misused, unlike earlier provisions under the Information Technology framework, with penalties instead being routed through the regulatory mechanism.

Fourth, it was contended that the constitution of the Data Protection Board lacks judicial oversight, as the Act does not provide for participation of the judiciary in the appointment process of the Board, raising concerns about the independence of the body entrusted with enforcing data protection norms.

The CJI also flagged the broader implications of the legislation, noting that issues relating to data sovereignty may arise during the Court’s consideration of the matter.

“There is another matter before us… eventually we will decide on merits where questions relating to the data of the entire citizenry may arise. Data sovereignty also becomes an issue, because today data has become the real wealth,” the CJI observed.

Emphasising the significance of the issue, the Court added that the matter “deserves to be prioritised and determined.”