A high-profile legal battle is unfolding as the Supreme Court examines five Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the DPDP Act 2023 Supreme Court challenge. The petitioners argue that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, weakens the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and gives the government excessive surveillance powers. A Constitution Bench has begun hearing the matter.
Constitutional Challenge to the Data Protection Regime
The Supreme Court of India has started hearing five PILs challenging the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. The petitioners contend that the law uses privacy protections to dilute the RTI Act while expanding the state’s surveillance powers. A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notices to the Central Government. However, the Court declined to stay the operation of the challenged provisions at this stage.
Legal Heavyweights Fronting the Court Battle
Some of India’s leading lawyers are representing both sides of the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta leads a 17-member government legal team defending the DPDP Act. A group of 38 lawyers represents transparency advocates, civil rights organisations, and media groups, including The Reporters’ Collective.
Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan, Indira Jaising, and Vrinda Grover are leading the petitioners’ arguments before the Court.
Petitioners Challenge RTI Amendment
The dispute centres on Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Earlier, the RTI Act allowed authorities to disclose personal information if a larger public interest justified it. The amendment removes this public interest exception and creates a complete bar on disclosing personal data.
The petitioners argue that the DPDP Act 2023 Supreme Court challenge raises serious concerns because the amendment could shield corruption from public scrutiny, weaken investigative journalism, and significantly reduce transparency in governance.
Concerns Over State Overreach and Data Sovereignty
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that Parliament used privacy as a justification to weaken long-standing information rights. She told the Court that the law adopts an overly broad approach instead of striking a balanced framework.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising also raised concerns about data sovereignty. She argued that certain provisions allow the government to access personal data across international borders. According to her, these powers create cross-border privacy risks and expand the state’s surveillance capabilities.
