The Wire: New Delhi: Monday, 16 February 2026.
RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak said he filed the petition to “ensure that two decades of transparency in the life of public authorities is not reversed into an era of dark opacity”.
A petition has been filed
in the Supreme Court seeking that some sections of the Digital Personal Data
Protection (DPDP) Act as well as its associated rules be struck down as
illegal, including on the grounds that they gravely undermine the right to information
(RTI).
Filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak with assistance from human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, the civil petition is scheduled to be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi on Monday (February 16).
In his petition Nayak pointed out that section 44(3) of the DPDP Act which unlike some other sections of the law is already in force amends the RTI Act of 2005 to more broadly exempt the disclosure of information deemed to be “personal”.
While section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had specified that such information may be exempted if it bears no relation to public activity or could cause “unwarranted invasion” of an individual’s privacy unless a public information officer feels that disclosure would be in the “larger public interest” now, after its amendment by section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, it simply provides for the exemption of “information which relates to personal information”.
Such a “blanket bar on the obligation to disclose all personal information”, Nayak said per a synopsis of his petition, makes the amended section liable to being struck down on at least eight grounds, including that it contravenes the right to information implicit in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to equality by “equating privacy of public functionaries to that of ordinary citizens”.
When combined with the definition of ‘personal information’ in section 2(t) of the DPDP Act, which Nayak said “brings within its fold all information which even remotely relates to the identity of an individual”, read with section 3(a)(ii) the right to information is rendered “illusory”, he added.
“It is a death knell for participatory democracy and ruinous to ideas of open governance,” wrote Nayak, who added that he filed his petition to “ensure that two decades of transparency in the life of public authorities is not reversed into an era of dark opacity”.
Notably, the economic survey released by the Union finance ministry last fortnight said that the RTI Act’s functioning needs to be ‘refined’ in “narrowly defined areas of internal deliberation”. “The concern,” it said, “is predictable: if every draft or remark might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer bold ideas”.
Other provisions of DPDP Act, rules ‘fail tests of arbitrariness, proportionality’
Turning to some other provisions of the DPDP Act and rules whose implementation the Union government had deferred to mid-2027, Nayak argued in his petition that some of them are unconstitutional because they are arbitrary and violate the separation of powers.
Rules 17(1) and 17(2) provide for a search-and-selection committee for the setting up of a data protection board but this panel would be dominated by the executive, and so the said provisions are “violative of the doctrine of separation of powers given that the Board performs quasi judicial functions”, Nayak argued.
Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2) “facilitate the operation of a surveillance regime with no necessary safeguards or review mechanism” as they create exemptions in the DPDP Act’s application, he continued, adding that Section 36 is arbitrary because it allows the Union government to call for any information from Board without statutory guidance or limitations on scope.
The DPDP Act was given presidential assent in August 2023 soon after it was passed by parliament but its rules were published and effected in November last year. However, the implementation of a number of provisions in the legislation was deferred by 18 months.
RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak said he filed the petition to “ensure that two decades of transparency in the life of public authorities is not reversed into an era of dark opacity”.
Filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak with assistance from human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, the civil petition is scheduled to be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi on Monday (February 16).
In his petition Nayak pointed out that section 44(3) of the DPDP Act which unlike some other sections of the law is already in force amends the RTI Act of 2005 to more broadly exempt the disclosure of information deemed to be “personal”.
While section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had specified that such information may be exempted if it bears no relation to public activity or could cause “unwarranted invasion” of an individual’s privacy unless a public information officer feels that disclosure would be in the “larger public interest” now, after its amendment by section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, it simply provides for the exemption of “information which relates to personal information”.
Such a “blanket bar on the obligation to disclose all personal information”, Nayak said per a synopsis of his petition, makes the amended section liable to being struck down on at least eight grounds, including that it contravenes the right to information implicit in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to equality by “equating privacy of public functionaries to that of ordinary citizens”.
When combined with the definition of ‘personal information’ in section 2(t) of the DPDP Act, which Nayak said “brings within its fold all information which even remotely relates to the identity of an individual”, read with section 3(a)(ii) the right to information is rendered “illusory”, he added.
“It is a death knell for participatory democracy and ruinous to ideas of open governance,” wrote Nayak, who added that he filed his petition to “ensure that two decades of transparency in the life of public authorities is not reversed into an era of dark opacity”.
Notably, the economic survey released by the Union finance ministry last fortnight said that the RTI Act’s functioning needs to be ‘refined’ in “narrowly defined areas of internal deliberation”. “The concern,” it said, “is predictable: if every draft or remark might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer bold ideas”.
Other provisions of DPDP Act, rules ‘fail tests of arbitrariness, proportionality’
Turning to some other provisions of the DPDP Act and rules whose implementation the Union government had deferred to mid-2027, Nayak argued in his petition that some of them are unconstitutional because they are arbitrary and violate the separation of powers.
Rules 17(1) and 17(2) provide for a search-and-selection committee for the setting up of a data protection board but this panel would be dominated by the executive, and so the said provisions are “violative of the doctrine of separation of powers given that the Board performs quasi judicial functions”, Nayak argued.
Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2) “facilitate the operation of a surveillance regime with no necessary safeguards or review mechanism” as they create exemptions in the DPDP Act’s application, he continued, adding that Section 36 is arbitrary because it allows the Union government to call for any information from Board without statutory guidance or limitations on scope.
The DPDP Act was given presidential assent in August 2023 soon after it was passed by parliament but its rules were published and effected in November last year. However, the implementation of a number of provisions in the legislation was deferred by 18 months.
.JPG)
.JPG)
