A screenshot of a computer AI-generated content may be incorrect.

On February 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India notified the Union Government about petitions that question the constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025. Chief Justice Surya Kant and his Bench noted that the issues are complex. The case was sent to a larger five-judge Constitution Bench for closer review. The case was sent to a larger five-judge Constitution Bench for closer review.

The petitions claim that the DPDP framework weakens transparency and accountability, especially because of the amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Advocates and civil society groups argue that the law puts privacy ahead of public-interest disclosures.

The main issue:

• Petitioners say Section 44(3) of the Act essentially "guts" the Right to Information (RTI) Act by banning the release of personal information about public officials and limiting when information can be shared in the public interest.

  
  

• Critics warn that the DPDP Act does not meet the proportionality test set out in the Puttaswamy judgment. They argue it lacks safeguards against abuse and places broad limits on fundamental rights.

The Court decided not to pause the law’s implementation, so businesses must keep working to comply even as the legal challenge continues. The Bench admitted there are still issues to resolve but said the law will not be stopped for now. The case is expected to be heard again in March 2026.

The case now goes to a larger Constitution Bench for a closer look at how the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information should be balanced. This move shows the Supreme Court wants to give clear guidance on how privacy laws and transparency requirements fit together.