NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that invoking public interest cannot be used as a basis for granting sweeping access to the private information of individuals holding public office.
“The right to access information in public interest must be balanced with the right to privacy of individuals. There cannot be a provision that allows blanket access to a person’s private information,” a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi said while agreeing to hear a petition challenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, argued that provisions in the Right to Information (RTI) Act that earlier allowed access to certain personal details related to individuals appointed to public or constitutional offices had effectively been nullified by the DPDP Act.
She contended that the new law could enable the state to access any individual’s data under the broad justification of maintaining public order, raising concerns about potential surveillance of citizens. Responding to the arguments, the bench said the court would eventually need to determine what kinds of data should be classified as public and what should remain private.
Jaising further pointed out that under the Information Technology Act, individuals whose data was unlawfully accessed were entitled to compensation. However, under the DPDP Act, she argued, the compensation would be paid to the government rather than to the affected individual.
She also raised concerns about the structure of the Data Protection Board of India—the main authority responsible for enforcing data protection—saying it lacked judicial oversight despite being tasked with adjudicating competing rights.
The bench acknowledged the concern, observing that such bodies should ideally include members with judicial training. “These matters require urgent adjudication,” the court said, agreeing to list the case for hearing at the earliest.
On February 16, the Supreme Court had taken up three petitions alleging that amendments to the RTI Act made through the DPDP Act had weakened the right to information, allowing authorities to deny requests by classifying the sought information as “personal.” However, the court declined to stay the operation of the law. The provisions of the DPDP Act have been defended by citing the Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment, which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
