SC notice to the Center regarding a new appeal contesting a 2023 data protection legislation provision
News Mania Desk/ Piyal Chatterjee/ 13th March 2026
On Friday, the Supreme Court asked the Center to respond to a new plea contesting the legality of a clause in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s bench notified the Center about the plea and clubbed it with other pending pleas that raised related issues.Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri filed a new petition requesting a declaration that the 2023 Act’s provisions do not apply to the processing, analysis, distribution, or re-publication of personal data collected and received under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Additionally, it requested a ruling that the 2023 Act’s requirements would not apply to the processing of personal data in the public interest, including as by those who report corruption, abuse of public authority, or criminal activity.
The plea has requested a declaration that Section 44 of the 2023 Act is illegal for “impermissibly curtailing the fundamental right to information” insofar as it replaces the provision of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. This is because it goes beyond Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.The case is scheduled for hearing on March 23 by the bench.On Thursday, the Supreme Court asked the Center to respond to a separate plea contesting the constitutionality of certain 2023 Act sections.
A specific and proportionate exemption under the 2023 Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 for processing personal data for journalistic, editorial, investigative, and public interest reporting purposes—including the protection of journalistic sources—has been requested in the separate petition.
The top court consented to review a number of cases contesting the legality of certain 2023 Act sections on February 16. However, it stated that “by an interim order, it will not thwart a regime introduced by Parliament unless we hear the case” and declined to grant an interim stay on the contested elements
