0.1 Background of the Case
0.1.1 Three separate PILs challenge the constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. Petitioners argue that while the Act claims to safeguard digital privacy, it undermines the Right to Information (RTI) and weakens investigative journalism while expanding state surveillance powers.
0.1.2 The petitions have been filed by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), Venkatesh Nayak, and The Reporters’ Collective (TRC).
0.1.3 The Supreme Court has admitted the pleas and referred them to a five-judge Constitution Bench, but declined to grant an interim stay on the Act.

0.2 Privacy vs Transparency – Core Conflict
0.2.1 Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which governs disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.
0.2.2 Earlier, disclosure could be denied only if it had no relation to public activity or caused unwarranted invasion of privacy. A “larger public interest” override allowed disclosure despite privacy concerns.
0.2.3 The amendment removes the public interest override, restricting the power of Public Information Officers (PIOs) to balance privacy against transparency.

0.3 Alleged Impact on RTI Framework
0.3.1 Petitioners argue that the amendment converts a carefully calibrated privacy exemption into an absolute bar on disclosure.
0.3.2 Investigations into corruption often rely on asset disclosures, tender documents, and file notations that may contain personal data.
0.3.3 The amendment is described as manifestly arbitrary and a blow to participatory democracy and open governance.

0.4 Constitutional Test – Proportionality
0.4.1 Petitioners rely on the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which mandates that restrictions on fundamental rights satisfy the proportionality test.
0.4.2 The State must demonstrate a legitimate aim, adopt the least restrictive measure, and ensure procedural safeguards against abuse.
0.4.3 It is argued that the DPDP Act fails this threshold by imposing blanket restrictions without adequate balancing mechanisms.

0.5 Impact on Journalism and Press Freedom
0.5.1 Under the DPDP Act, journalists collecting data may be classified as “data fiduciaries”, imposing obligations such as notice and consent from individuals being investigated.
0.5.2 TRC argues that requiring consent from subjects of investigation is infeasible and counter-productive for investigative journalism.
0.5.3 Section 12 mandates data erasure if consent is denied, potentially preventing post-facto validation of reports and creating a chilling effect due to penalties up to ₹250 crore.

0.6 State Powers and Surveillance Concerns
0.6.1 Section 36 empowers the Union government to call for information from any data fiduciary, allegedly enabling unreasonable digital searches without adequate safeguards.
0.6.2 The absence of appeal or review mechanisms makes the provision vulnerable to arbitrary and excessive abuse.
0.6.3 The centralisation of authority over private data expands executive control without proportional oversight.

0.7 Independence of the Data Protection Board
0.7.1 The Data Protection Board of India, tasked with enforcement and penalties, is alleged to lack institutional independence.
0.7.2 The search-cum-selection committee consists entirely of government secretaries and government-nominated experts.
0.7.3 Complete executive dominance in appointments is argued to violate separation of powers, particularly as the Board performs quasi-judicial functions.