Constitution Bench to hear pleas against DPDP Act
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to refer petitions challenging a key provision of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench. Petitioners argue that Section 44(3) of the law undermines citizens’ Right to Information (RTI) by imposing a blanket restriction on disclosure of “personal information”, thereby weakening transparency and accountability in governance. The Court termed the issue a “complex and sensitive question of law” and indicated it may need to define the scope of “personal information”. However, it declined to grant an interim stay on the provision.
Background
India’s data protection framework emerged after the landmark privacy ruling in:Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
The judgment recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. This led to years of debate, balancing:
- Privacy
- Transparency
- Digital governance
- State accountability
The DPDP Act, 2023, was enacted to regulatethe collection, storage, and processing of digital personal data. However, Section 44(3) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Earlier RTI framework
Under the original RTI Act:
- Personal information could be denied only if
- It had no relation to public activity, or
- It caused an unwarranted invasion of privacy
- Even then, disclosure was allowed if public interest outweighed privacy
This required a case-by-case balancing test by the Public Information Officer.
What Section 44(3) changes
Petitioners argue for the amendment:
- Removes the public interest override
- Creates a broad shield against disclosure
- Expands privacy protection even for public officials
- Limits citizens’ ability to scrutinise government functioning
Features
The petitions claim the amendment:
- Violates Article 19(1)(a) — right to information as part of free speech
- Violates Article 14 — equating public officials with private citizens
- Misapplies privacy — extending it to the State
- Removes proportionality safeguards built into RTI law
Petitioners rely on the 2019 Constitution Bench judgment:
Central Public Information Officer v. Supreme Court of India (2019).This ruling held that privacy and transparency must be balanced using the proportionality doctrine.
Core Constitutional Issues
The Constitution Bench will likely examine:
- What counts as “personal information”?
- Can privacy override transparency automatically?
- Does the State enjoy privacy like an individual?
- Is a blanket restriction constitutionally valid?
- How should proportionality be applied?
This case could redefine the relationship between:
- privacy
- transparency
- digital governance
- democratic accountability
Challenges
Privacy vs Transparency Tension
- Strong privacy laws may unintentionally weaken anti-corruption tools.
Risk of Government Secrecy
- Broad exemptions may shield misconduct, asset disclosures, and decision-making.
Legal Ambiguity
- Undefined terms invite inconsistent interpretation.
Administrative Overreach
- Officials may default to denial to avoid scrutiny.
Democratic Trust Deficit
- Reduced transparency can erode citizen confidence.
Way Forward
Restore Public Interest Test
- Privacy exemptions should retain a balancing clause.
Clear Definition of Personal Data
Differentiate:
- private personal data
- official public conduct
- accountability-related information
Tiered Disclosure Framework
- Higher transparency standards for public officials.
Independent Oversight
- Strengthen Information Commissions to review denials.
Harmonisation, Not Hierarchy
- Privacy law and RTI must complement each other.
Conclusion
The Constitution Bench hearing is not merely a technical dispute; it is a foundational question about the character of Indian democracy in the digital age. A privacy regime that silences transparency risks, empowering opacity. Conversely, unchecked disclosure can harm dignity and autonomy. The Court’s task is to reaffirm a constitutional equilibrium where privacy protects citizens but does not protect power from scrutiny.
