The Supreme Court Challenge to the DPDP Act: RTI, Journalism and What Businesses Should Watch

The DPDP Act is being challenged in the Supreme Court. The case does not pause your compliance programme (the Court has expressly refused to stay the law), but it could reshape some provisions, so it is worth understanding.

The petitions

Writ petitions filed in early 2026 include those by Venkatesh Nayak (W.P.(C) 177/2026), The Reporters' Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi (W.P.(C) 211/2026), and the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (W.P.(C) 212/2026). Further petitions, including one by journalist Geeta Seshu and SFLC.in, have reportedly been tagged with them.

What is being challenged

The central target is Section 44(3), which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Before the amendment, personal information could be withheld only if it had no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and a public authority could still disclose it where the larger public interest justified it. The amended clause exempts personal information more broadly, without that balancing test. Petitioners argue this could shield information about public servants, procurement and public spending.

Petitioners have also challenged:

• Section 36 and Rule 23: the government's power to call for information from Data Fiduciaries.
• Section 17(2)(a): the power to exempt government instrumentalities.
• Section 7, for lacking an exemption for journalistic or public-interest processing.
• Section 44(2), which removed compensation under Section 43A of the IT Act.
• The independence of the Data Protection Board.

What the Court has done so far

• 16 February 2026: A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice to the Union, said there was "no question of stay", and referred the RTI questions to a larger bench. The Court said the issue was sensitive, with arguable points on both sides, and that "some ironing out of the creases" may be needed.
• March 2026: The Court framed the key question as what is public data and what is private data, asked whether information about a public office-holder can be private, and said neither privacy nor the right to information should defeat the other.
• Further hearings followed through mid-2026. As of mid-October 2026, no provision has been struck down or suspended.

What this means for businesses

1. Keep to the timeline. Without a stay, the November 2026 and May 2027 commencement dates stand.
2. Most of the challenge concerns the state, not private Data Fiduciaries. RTI, government exemptions and state information requests mostly affect public bodies. The core private-sector obligations (notice, consent, security, breach reporting, rights) are not the focus of the petitions.
3. Watch Section 36 and Rule 23. If the Court narrows the government's power to call for information, your process for handling government data requests will need to change. Build that process now with a legal review step, so that it can adapt.
4. Media and publishing businesses should follow closely. A journalistic exemption, if the Court reads one in, would change how newsrooms process personal data.

Vidhi, our regulatory-intelligence agent, tracks court orders and Gazette notifications and flags any change that affects your controls. See also what is in force today.

Position as of 15 October 2026. Not legal advice.