The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
Issuing notice to the Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench.
The Supreme Court on
Monday refused to grant any interim stay on the amendments made to the RTI Act
by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the Digital
Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, but said it will examine them “to
balance” competing “rights”.
Issuing notice to the Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, was dealing with petitions filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak; digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective and its journalist Nitin Sethi; and one by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Taking up the petitions, the CJI said, “There is some sensitivity involved”, adding the question is how to balance the competing rights.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, Advocate Vrinda Grover said, “What it (the amendments) has done is instead of using a chisel, it uses a hammer and that hammer has dealt a body blow to multiple rights.”
The petitions have challenged the amendment made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, stating that it “operates as a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose personal information”. They pointed out that prior to the amendment, personal information could be disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.
Nayak’s plea stated that “a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose all personal information, without the statutory scheme to balance it against larger public interest, renders section 44(3) of the DPDP Act liable to be struck down on multiple counts…”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NCPRI, said the issue of competing rights was already settled by the 2019 Constitution bench judgment in CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal case. “They went into this question of balance and proportionality and they held expressly that the Right to Information Act section 8(1)(j)… strikes absolutely the right balance between the right to privacy and the right to information because both are competing fundamental rights,” said Bhushan.
The CJI, however, said the judgment did not directly consider Section 8(1)(j).
“I think both sides will have some arguments. A balance between both rights is needed. We will have to iron out some creases might as to what is meaning of personal information etc,” he added.
The CJI said, “ It’s complex, slightly sensitive, and, at the same time, a very interesting issue, which touches fundamental rights on both sides; some balancing exercise may be needed.”
Bhushan said NCPRI had also filed an application for stay and urged the bench to issue notice on it. But the CJI said, “No question of stay. We will decide the matter at the earliest.”
Bhushan said he was asking for the notice because “they (government) are now denying information” citing the amendment.
The CJI said the court “will not through interim orders” disrupt something which Parliament has thought of “unless we are convinced…” that it is necessary.
Issuing notice to the Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench.
Issuing notice to the Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, was dealing with petitions filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak; digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective and its journalist Nitin Sethi; and one by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Taking up the petitions, the CJI said, “There is some sensitivity involved”, adding the question is how to balance the competing rights.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, Advocate Vrinda Grover said, “What it (the amendments) has done is instead of using a chisel, it uses a hammer and that hammer has dealt a body blow to multiple rights.”
The petitions have challenged the amendment made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, stating that it “operates as a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose personal information”. They pointed out that prior to the amendment, personal information could be disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.
Nayak’s plea stated that “a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose all personal information, without the statutory scheme to balance it against larger public interest, renders section 44(3) of the DPDP Act liable to be struck down on multiple counts…”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NCPRI, said the issue of competing rights was already settled by the 2019 Constitution bench judgment in CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal case. “They went into this question of balance and proportionality and they held expressly that the Right to Information Act section 8(1)(j)… strikes absolutely the right balance between the right to privacy and the right to information because both are competing fundamental rights,” said Bhushan.
The CJI, however, said the judgment did not directly consider Section 8(1)(j).
“I think both sides will have some arguments. A balance between both rights is needed. We will have to iron out some creases might as to what is meaning of personal information etc,” he added.
The CJI said, “ It’s complex, slightly sensitive, and, at the same time, a very interesting issue, which touches fundamental rights on both sides; some balancing exercise may be needed.”
Bhushan said NCPRI had also filed an application for stay and urged the bench to issue notice on it. But the CJI said, “No question of stay. We will decide the matter at the earliest.”
Bhushan said he was asking for the notice because “they (government) are now denying information” citing the amendment.
The CJI said the court “will not through interim orders” disrupt something which Parliament has thought of “unless we are convinced…” that it is necessary.
.JPG)
.JPG)
