The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a petition challenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, with the petitioners contending that the law disrupts the balance between the right to privacy and the right to information.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Act adopts an overbroad approach to data protection, affecting multiple fundamental rights. The plea argues the law dilutes the RTI regime by creating a blanket bar on disclosure of personal information and vests sweeping powers in the Centre to requisition data from any fiduciary.
He submitted that the law upsets the carefully crafted balance previously recognised by a Constitution Bench in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, where the Court examined the interplay between the Right to Information Act and the right to privacy.
According to the petitioners, the Constitution Bench had expressly held that Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act struck an appropriate balance between Article 19(1)(a), which includes the right to information, and Article 21, which guarantees the right to privacy. It was contended that amendments introduced through the Data Protection framework dilute this balance by expanding the scope of what may be withheld as “personal information.”
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the matter involves complex and sensitive issues requiring a balancing of competing fundamental rights. While noting that both sides may have arguable points, the Court declined to grant any immediate interim stay on the operation of the Act. It was remarked that an interim order should not effectively introduce a parallel regime or suspend legislation enacted by Parliament without first hearing the Union.
The Court issued notice in the petition and the interim application, and directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench, considering the significant constitutional questions raised.