Supreme Court to Hear Plea Alleging New Data Law ‘Weaponizes’ Privacy, ‘Disarms’ RTI

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Delhi,15, February,2026- On Monday, February 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear a critical petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which activists claim has “disarmed” the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The petition, filed by prominent transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak and represented by Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, argues that the new law effectively weaponizes the right to privacy to shield the state from public scrutiny.

Key Legal Challenges

The petition primarily targets Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which has fundamentally altered the transparency landscape in India by amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

1. Removal of the “Public Interest” Test

Previously, Section 8(1)(j) allowed Public Information Officers (PIOs) to disclose personal information if the “larger public interest” justified it. The new amendment has deleted this balancing clause.

“The Petitioner submits that vide the above amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of.RTI Act has been stripped of the three-pronged test that it originally contained and now operates as a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose personal information. Earlier, prior to the amendment, the Public Information Officer or First Appellate Authority was statutorily equipped and required to carry out a three-pronged test as detailed below under Section 8(1)(j):

i. Test of public activity

ii. Test of unwarranted invasion

iii. Mandatory public interest override to facilitate disclosure”

• The Result: A blanket ban on any information deemed “personal,” regardless of whether it exposes corruption or administrative lapses.

2. Redefining Privacy as a “Shield for the State”

“The petitioner contends that the right to privacy—a fundamental right intended to protect citizens from state intrusion—is being turned on its head. It is now being used to protect public functionaries and the state from disclosing information that was once accessible, such as:

• Official asset declarations.
• Educational qualifications of candidates.
• Records of disciplinary proceedings against officials.
• Beneficiary lists for government welfare schemes.
• “The Petitioner submits that a blanket bar on the obligation to disclose all
• personal information, without the statutory scheme to balance it against larger public interest, renders Section 44(3) of DPDP Act liable to be struck down on
• multiple counts, including inter-alia:
• a) It is an unreasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1)(a); and
• b) Privacy is not a fundamental right available to the State; and
• c) Privacy is not a ground for restriction under Article 19(2); and
• d) It fails the 5-pronged proportionality test; and
• e) It violates Article 14 by equating privacy of public functionaries to that of
• ordinary citizens; and
• f) It inverts the jurisprudence of privacy viz-a-viz the right to information;
• and
• g) It prioritizes privacy over the larger public interest of transparency and
• open governance, which is unconstitutional and against the dicta of
• PUCL vs Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399, as reiterated in KS
• Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1.
• h) It accords unguided discretion to the executive to deny personal information, which is unconstitutional.”

3. Structural “Death Knell” for Democracy

Venkatesh Nayak’s plea describes the amendment as a “death knell” for participatory democracy. He argues that by making information “illusory,” the law reverses two decades of progress toward open governance, plunging the country into an “era of dark opacity.”

The Judicial Bench

A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant, and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, will preside over the hearing.

This case is being heard alongside similar petitions filed by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and the Reporters Collective Trust, both of which argue that the DPDP Act’s “draconian” impact on the RTI Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Context: Why This Matters

Since Section 44(3) was notified on November 13, 2025, activists have reported a surge in RTI rejections. PIOs now often cite the “personal nature” of information as a default excuse to deny requests, fearing the heavy penalties (up to ₹250 crore) prescribed under the DPDP Act for unauthorized data disclosure.