New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) moved by right to information activist Venkatesh Nayak, journalist Nitin Sethi who runs digital news outlet The Reporters Collective and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).The petitioners primarily sought a declaration of certain provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and its Rules cleared by the Union government in 2025, as violative of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Agreeing that the issues raised by the PILs required consideration, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi referred the matter to a larger bench, Live Law reported.Nayak confirmed to The Wire after the hearing the court noted that laws must strike a balance between the fundamental right to privacy of citizens and their right to information. The latter right flows from the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.Section 44(3) of the new privacy law has been contested through the PILs because it explicitly amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The DPDP Act gives a blanket exemption to all disclosures that can be regarded as “personal” information – including, potentially, the names and identities, even the posts held by government officials, which have been a matter of routine disclosure under the transparency law so far.Also read: ‘Draconian Impact’ on Citizens’ Rights: Opposition MPs Demand Repeal of Section 44(3) of DPDP ActSection 44(3) in the DPDP Act inserts a new clause that replaces Section 2(1)(j) in the older law. When earlier the RTI Act allowed disclosures of personal information in the public interest, especially if there was a strong transparency reason, the DPDP Act closes that door. If information is “personal”, it can now be denied, no explanation required.According to Live Law, Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing Nayak before the court, said that “instead of using a chisel, they have used a sledgehammer” in the DPDP Act, meaning that instead of protecting privacy, Section 44(3) will put an end to transparency.Sections 17(1)(c), 17(2), 33(1) and 36 of the DPDP were also contested by petitioner Nayak and others, on grounds of being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. These provisions are being challenged for allowing the state leeway to access and process personal data for while lowering privacy protections and accountability. For this reason, the petition filled by Nayak specifically states that these provisions violate the guarantees of equality, free speech and personal liberty under the constitution.Nayak’s petition requests the court for an in-depth examination of the provisions in the DPDP Act, beyond these two primary prayers.Chief Justice Kant reportedly said that the issues raised in the petition by The Reporters Collective, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, were “complex but interesting” and touched upon “fundamental rights of both sides”.He said that “some ironing out of the creases might be needed to strike a balance”.The NCPRI represented by Supreme Court Advocate Prashant Bhushan also sought a stay (in a separate application) on the operation of the controversial provisions, but that was denied by Chief Justice Kant, who stated, “No question of stay,” pointing out that the court would not want to limit the operation of a law passed by parliament as an interim measure.The DPDP Act from a journalism perspectiveIn a statement issued on February 16, Reporters Collective said it is making its petition before the Supreme Court accessible to all members of the public and explained why it approached the court: “We read the DPDP Act as an attack on accountability and investigative journalism. We read the act as an attack by stealth on the citizens’ Right to Information. The DPDP Act in its current form diminishes our democracy,” it said.The petition says, “The DPDP Act has no exemption for processing personal data for public purposes, including in respect of efforts to gather data in the public interest, journalistic expressions. As such, the lack of such an exemption makes the scheme of the DPDP Act unconstitutional, unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary.”The Reporters Collective petition argues that Section 36, read with Rule 23 for the Act, allows the Union government to demand people’s personal data too easily, without clear limits or safeguards. Its says this could enable unreasonable “digital searches”, violates privacy and liberty under Article 21, is vague and arbitrary as per Article 14 and that it undermines free speech guaranteed under Article 19. This is because people may not even be told their data was shared. The petition argues that it could be used to block or penalise information-gathering and publishing of information that is meant to serve the public interest – a role intrinsic to journalism, especially investigative journalism of the kind the Reporters Collective does.