Digital Personal Data Protection Act and DPDP Rules challenged in Supreme Court

Alleging that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025, substantially weakened the transparency framework under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by creating a ‘blanket exemption’ for disclosure of personal information, a digital news platform and a journalist have challenged validity of their provisions before the Supreme Court.

The Central Government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025, on November 14, 2025, marking the full operationalisation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

The Reporters’ Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi – the petitioners – have challenged Section 36 of the DPDP Act read with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules which empowered the Central Government to call for information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries.

The amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act removed the earlier balancing test that allowed disclosure of personal information if it was related to public activity or public interest, they said.

Contending that these provisions authorised unreasonable digital searches and enabled the gathering and storage of personal data without adequate safeguards, the petitioners said it violated Article 21.

Terming Section 36 as vague and arbitrary, they said it also violated Article 14 (right to equality and Article 19 (right to various freedoms including the freedom of speech and expression) as the intrusions were not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The new regime effectively barred disclosure of personal information altogether, regardless of whether larger public interest justifies such disclosure, the petitioner said, adding it undermined citizens’ right to information and transparency in public administration.

Pointing out that journalists and transparency activists frequently relied on access to personal information in limited, public-interest context to expose wrongdoing, corruption, or conflicts of interest, the petitioners alleged that by eliminating the public interest override, the amended provision tilted the balance decisively in favour of privacy at the cost of accountability.