Data Law on Trial

 Supreme Court to Examine Privacy, Public Interest and Press Freedom

(Constitutional Challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 | CLAT 2026 Analytical Brief for CLAT Gurukul)

Introduction

India’s evolving data governance framework has entered a decisive constitutional phase. The Supreme Court of India has admitted petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). The petitions argue that while the Act claims to safeguard digital privacy, it simultaneously undermines transparency, restricts investigative journalism, and dilutes the Right to Information (RTI).

The challenge raises a classic constitutional tension: privacy versus transparency. It also implicates freedom of speech, proportionality doctrine, and institutional independence. The Court has referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, signalling its significance.

For CLAT aspirants preparing under CLAT Current affairs 2026 and Current Affairs 2026, this development is critical. It integrates constitutional law, media freedom, administrative law, and public interest jurisprudence. Students enrolled in the best online coaching for CLAT and online coaching for CLAT must study the doctrinal foundations carefully.

Why in News

The issue is in news because:

1. Three PILs have been filed challenging the DPDP Act, 2023.
2. The Supreme Court has admitted the petitions and referred them to a Constitution Bench.
3. Petitioners argue that amendments to the RTI Act weaken transparency.
4. Journalists warn of a chilling effect on investigative reporting.
5. Concerns have been raised about executive dominance in the Data Protection Board.

Point-wise Summary of the Article

1. The Constitutional Challenge

• Three separate PILs challenge the DPDP Act.
• Petitioners include:
  • National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI).
  • Transparency advocate Venkatesh Nayak.
  • The Reporters’ Collective (TRC).
• The Supreme Court admitted the pleas.
• A Constitution Bench will hear the matter.
• No interim stay was granted on the Act.

2. Privacy vs Transparency Conflict

The central issue:

• Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• Earlier: Public Information Officers (PIOs) could disclose personal information if larger public interest justified disclosure.
• Now: The amendment removes this balancing power.

Petitioners argue:

• This extinguishes the statutory power to weigh public interest.
• It creates an “absolute privacy” shield.

3. Landmark Proportionality Principle

The article references the 2017 privacy judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Key principle:

• Any restriction on fundamental rights must satisfy proportionality.
• It must:
  • Serve legitimate aim.
  • Use least restrictive means.
  • Include safeguards against abuse.

Petitioners argue DPDP fails this test.

4. Impact on Investigative Journalism

The Reporters’ Collective contends:

• Journalists collecting personal data may be classified as “data fiduciaries.”
• They may need consent from subjects of investigation.
• If consent is denied:
  • Data must be erased under Section 12.
  • Investigative reporting becomes infeasible.

This creates:

• Severe practical barriers.
• Potential chilling effect.
• Penalties up to ₹250 crore under the Act.

5. Expansion of State Surveillance

Section 36 allows:

• Union government to call for information from data fiduciaries.
• Critics argue:
  • Provision is vague and overbroad.
  • Lacks procedural safeguards.
  • Enables unreasonable digital searches.

6. State Power and Independence Concerns

The Data Protection Board of India (DPBI):

• Enforces the Act.
• Imposes penalties.
• Under notified rules:
  • Appointment committee comprises government secretaries.
  • Experts nominated by government.

Petitioners argue:

• Executive dominance violates separation of powers.
• No independent appellate review.
• Risk of arbitrary exercise of power.

7. Democratic Governance Concerns

NCPRI describes the RTI amendment as:

• A “death knell” for democracy.
• Ruinous to open governance.
• Manifestly arbitrary.

Transparency advocates claim:

• It shields corruption.
• Limits asset disclosure scrutiny.
• Weakens public accountability.

Constitutional and Legal Analysis (CLAT-Oriented)

1. Article 21 – Right to Privacy

Privacy recognised as fundamental right in Puttaswamy.

DPDP Act intended to operationalise privacy protections.

But privacy cannot be absolute when public interest is involved.

2. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression

Investigative journalism:

• Integral to free speech.
• Protected under Article 19(1)(a).

Restrictions must satisfy proportionality under Article 19(2).

3. Right to Information as Democratic Instrument

Though RTI is statutory, it flows from Article 19(1)(a).

Transparency:

• Essential to accountability.
• Key to participatory democracy.

4. Proportionality Doctrine

Four-pronged test:

1. Legitimate aim.
2. Rational nexus.
3. Necessity (least restrictive means).
4. Balancing stage.

Petitioners argue DPDP Act fails necessity and balancing stages.

5. Separation of Powers

Executive control over:

• Appointment of Data Protection Board.
• Enforcement actions.

Raises institutional independence concerns.

Public Policy Dimensions

1. Privacy Protection Imperative

India needed a comprehensive data law.

Digital economy expansion necessitates safeguards.

2. Transparency Trade-off

Absolute privacy exemptions may:

• Reduce corruption exposure.
• Curtail public accountability.

3. Media Regulation Risks

Over-regulation:

• Discourages investigative journalism.
• Promotes self-censorship.

Key Themes for CLAT 2026

1. Privacy vs Transparency.
2. Proportionality Doctrine.
3. Separation of Powers.
4. Press Freedom.
5. Administrative Law and Regulatory Bodies.

This is a high-probability topic under CLAT Current affairs 2026 and Current Affairs 2026, especially for Legal Reasoning passages.

Critical Evaluation

Strengths of the DPDP Act:

• Formalises privacy rights.
• Establishes enforcement mechanism.
• Imposes penalties for misuse.

Major Concerns:

• Weakens RTI safeguards.
• Chilling effect on journalism.
• Executive dominance.
• Vague surveillance provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s examination of the DPDP Act represents a foundational moment in India’s digital constitutionalism. The case tests whether privacy protection can coexist with transparency and press freedom. The Constitution Bench’s decision will likely shape the balance between individual data rights and democratic accountability.

For aspirants preparing through the best online coaching for CLAT and online coaching for CLAT, this issue offers a rich analytical opportunity. It synthesises constitutional doctrine, statutory interpretation, administrative independence, and media freedom — core areas under CLAT Current affairs 2026.

Notes: Explanation of Peculiar Terms

• PIL (Public Interest Litigation): Legal action filed to protect public interest.
• Data Fiduciary: Entity determining purpose and means of processing personal data.
• Chilling Effect: Discouragement of legitimate exercise of rights due to fear of penalties.
• Proportionality Test: Judicial standard for evaluating rights restrictions.
• Constitution Bench: Bench of at least five judges in the Supreme Court.
• Separation of Powers: Division of authority among legislative, executive, and judiciary.
• Manifest Arbitrariness: Legal standard invalidating arbitrary state action.

Prepared for CLAT Gurukul – delivering doctrinal clarity and analytical precision for CLAT 2026 aspirants.