The Supreme Court of India has declined to stay a recent amendment to the Right to Information Act — referring the case to a larger bench in March. The apex court also issued a notice to the Centre and agreed to examine a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
The Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the matter involved a sensitive issue and stressed the need to balance competing interests. The top court said an interim order would “not thwart a regime introduced by Parliament unless we hear the case”.
“This is about balancing competing interests. We have to iron out the creases and lay down what constitutes personal information. It is a complex and sensitive issue and interesting because it touches upon fundamental rights on both sides,” reports quoted Chief Justice Kant as saying.
The apex court said the matter would be placed before a larger bench and a decision will be taken “at the earliest”. It will be listed on a miscellaneous day in March.
What is the case?
The bench has referred three petitions — filed by Venkatesh Nayak on behalf of digital news platform ‘The Reporters Collective’, journalist Nitin Sethi and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) — to a larger bench. The pleas raised concerns over the “fiduciary” clauses, which allow the central government to requisition data from any data fiduciary at its discretion. The Supreme Court said the matter pertained to “complex and sensitive issues,” and it involved balancing two competing sets of fundamental rights — the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy”.
The petitioners contend that the legislation has taken an excessive approach — with amendments that ‘undermine transparency safeguards’. The pleas focus mainly on Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. This section amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to give a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information.