The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court is set to examine a constitutional challenge to key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and its accompanying rules, with a petition arguing that certain sections of the law dilute the Right to Information (RTI) framework.
The plea, filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak with assistance from human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, is scheduled for hearing on Monday (February 16) before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi.
At the heart of the challenge is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which is already in force and amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Nayak’s petition contends that the amendment significantly expands the scope for withholding information by broadly exempting disclosures that “relate to personal information.”
Earlier, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act permitted denial of personal information only if it bore no relation to public activity or would result in an “unwarranted invasion” of privacy, unless a public information officer determined that disclosure served the “larger public interest.” Following the amendment under Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, the provision now simply exempts “information which relates to personal information,” removing the earlier balancing test.
Describing the amendment as unconstitutional, the petition states: “Every RTI application involving identifiable public officials, procurement records, audit reports, appointment files, utilisation of public funds, or exercise of statutory discretion can now be denied automatically on the ground that it ‘relates to personal information’. The constitutional consequence is immediate and serious.”
It further argues, “The amendment to section 8(1)(j) is a death knell for participatory democracy, and ruinous to ideas of open governance, which must guide the Indian polity in consonance with the constitutionally recognized fundamental right of the citizen to know and be informed.”
The plea asserts that the earlier version of the provision contained an in-built balancing mechanism, allowing authorities to weigh privacy concerns against the public’s right to know.
“The amendment imposes a blanket ban on the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) on the ground of privacy under Article 21, without maintaining a constitutionally mandated balance,” it states.
The petition also points out that the proportionality safeguard embedded in the unamended section had been recognised by a Constitution bench in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020).
The challenge comes amid broader debates over transparency and data governance. The recent Economic Survey released by the Union finance ministry observed that the RTI Act’s functioning requires refinement in “narrowly defined areas of internal deliberation.”
“The concern,” it noted, “is predictable: if every draft or remark might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer bold ideas.”
In addition to Section 44(3), the petition raises objections to other provisions of the DPDP Act. It argues that Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2) “facilitate the operation of a surveillance regime with no necessary safeguards or review mechanism” by creating broad exemptions from the Act’s application.
It also challenges Section 36 as arbitrary, contending that it permits the Union government to seek any information from the Data Protection Board without clear statutory guidance or limitations.
The DPDP Act received presidential assent in August 2023 after being passed by Parliament. Its rules were notified in November last year, though the implementation of several provisions has been deferred for 18 months.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the petition is expected to address significant constitutional questions concerning the balance between privacy and transparency in India’s legal framework.
The plea, filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak with assistance from human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, is scheduled for hearing on Monday (February 16) before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi.
At the heart of the challenge is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which is already in force and amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Nayak’s petition contends that the amendment significantly expands the scope for withholding information by broadly exempting disclosures that “relate to personal information.”
Earlier, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act permitted denial of personal information only if it bore no relation to public activity or would result in an “unwarranted invasion” of privacy, unless a public information officer determined that disclosure served the “larger public interest.” Following the amendment under Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, the provision now simply exempts “information which relates to personal information,” removing the earlier balancing test.
Describing the amendment as unconstitutional, the petition states: “Every RTI application involving identifiable public officials, procurement records, audit reports, appointment files, utilisation of public funds, or exercise of statutory discretion can now be denied automatically on the ground that it ‘relates to personal information’. The constitutional consequence is immediate and serious.”
It further argues, “The amendment to section 8(1)(j) is a death knell for participatory democracy, and ruinous to ideas of open governance, which must guide the Indian polity in consonance with the constitutionally recognized fundamental right of the citizen to know and be informed.”
The plea asserts that the earlier version of the provision contained an in-built balancing mechanism, allowing authorities to weigh privacy concerns against the public’s right to know.
“The amendment imposes a blanket ban on the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) on the ground of privacy under Article 21, without maintaining a constitutionally mandated balance,” it states.
The petition also points out that the proportionality safeguard embedded in the unamended section had been recognised by a Constitution bench in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020).
The challenge comes amid broader debates over transparency and data governance. The recent Economic Survey released by the Union finance ministry observed that the RTI Act’s functioning requires refinement in “narrowly defined areas of internal deliberation.”
“The concern,” it noted, “is predictable: if every draft or remark might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer bold ideas.”
In addition to Section 44(3), the petition raises objections to other provisions of the DPDP Act. It argues that Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2) “facilitate the operation of a surveillance regime with no necessary safeguards or review mechanism” by creating broad exemptions from the Act’s application.
It also challenges Section 36 as arbitrary, contending that it permits the Union government to seek any information from the Data Protection Board without clear statutory guidance or limitations.
The DPDP Act received presidential assent in August 2023 after being passed by Parliament. Its rules were notified in November last year, though the implementation of several provisions has been deferred for 18 months.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the petition is expected to address significant constitutional questions concerning the balance between privacy and transparency in India’s legal framework.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment