NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Center on a fresh petition challenging the validity of a provision of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi issued a notice to the Center on the petition and marked it with pending appeals raising a similar issue.
The new petition, filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, sought to direct a declaration that the provisions of the 2023 Act do not apply to the processing, analysing, publishing or re-publishing of personal data accessed and obtained under the Right to Information Act 2005.
It also requested a directive that the provisions of the 2023 Act will not apply to the processing of personal data in the public interest, including those who blow the whistle on corruption, abuse of public office or commission of a crime.
The petition sought a declaration that Section 44 of the 2023 Act, insofar as it replaces the provision of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, is unconstitutional, being ultra vires Sections 14 and 19 of the Constitution, for “impermissibly curtailing the fundamental right to information”.
The court adjourned the case to be heard on March 23.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Center on a separate petition challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the 2023 Act.
The separate petition sought to direct the Center to incorporate and notify specific and proportionate exemption under the Act 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025, for processing of personal data for the purposes of journalistic, editorial and investigative reporting and public interest, including protection of journalistic sources.
On February 16, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a batch of appeals challenging the validity of several provisions of the 2023 law.
However, it refused to grant an interim stay on the impugned rulings, saying “by interim order, the order introduced by Parliament will not be frustrated unless we hear the case.”
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
