Venkatesh Nayak’s action echoes broader criticisms from civil society, journalists, and RTI activists, who argue the amendment dilutes the RTI Act’s transparency mandate by creating obstacles to accessing vital information like asset declarations or misconduct records.

In a move highlighting the ongoing tension between privacy rights and public transparency, Venkatesh Nayak, a well-known human rights and transparency advocate based in New Delhi, has filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India. The petition challenges key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), arguing that the Act and the rules framed for its implementation undermine citizens’ fundamental right to information and enable excessive government discretion.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on 6 February 2026, the petition seeks to declare Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act – along with Sections 17(1)(c), 17(2), 33(1), and 36 – ultra vires the Constitution. It also targets Rules 17 and 23(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. Nayak, who filed the case in his private capacity as a concerned citizen, is being guided by prominent human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover.

The first hearing is scheduled for Monday.

The DPDP Act, enacted on August 11, 2023, and fully operationalised with the 2025 rules notified on November 13, 2025, establishes India’s first comprehensive framework for regulating the processing of digital personal data.

However, the petition focuses heavily on Section 44(3), which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The original RTI provision exempted personal information from disclosure only if it had no relation to public activity, would cause unwarranted privacy invasion, or unless larger public interest justified release. The amendment simplifies it to a blanket exemption for all “personal information,” removing the three-pronged test of public activity, unwarranted invasion, and public interest override.

According to the petition’s synopsis, this change renders the right to information “illusory” by allowing public authorities to deny requests simply by classifying information as personal, even for public functionaries. It argues the amendment violates Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression, including right to information), and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution of India.

Echoes Broader Criticisms

The petition cites Supreme Court precedents like PUCL v. Union of India (2003) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019), asserting that privacy cannot override transparency in public governance and that the state has no fundamental right to privacy.

Additional challenges include:

• Executive dominance in the Data Protection Board: Rule 17’s search-cum-selection committees for appointing the Board’s chairperson and members are criticized for violating separation of powers, as the Board performs quasi-judicial functions.
• Surveillance exemptions: Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2) allow partial or full exemptions from the Act without safeguards, potentially enabling unchecked surveillance.
• Arbitrary powers: Section 36 permits the government to demand any information from the Board or data fiduciaries (entities processing data) without limits, while Section 33(1) leaves “significant” data breaches undefined, granting unbridled discretion.
• Rule 23(2): Similarly faulted for vagueness in penalties.

Nayak’s action echoes broader criticisms from civil society, journalists, and RTI activists, who argue the amendment dilutes the RTI Act’s transparency mandate by creating obstacles to accessing vital information like asset declarations or misconduct records. Experts warn it could reverse two decades of open governance, prioritising privacy over accountability and potentially fostering secrecy in public institutions. The Oxford Human Rights Hub has described the change as counterproductive, failing proportionality tests and threatening democratic oversight.

The case comes amid phased implementation of the DPDP Act, with some provisions like exemptions and penalties set to take effect in May 2027 – 18 months after notification.