What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They will try to trick you by swapping the direction of the amendment: saying the DPDP Act 'strengthened' the RTI Act's public interest override, when it actually removed it. Also, confusing the 'proportionality test' with the 'reasonable restrictions' test under Article 19.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: Maximum penalty under DPDP Act is ₹250 crore. 2. Target this Nodal Body: Data Protection Board of India is the enforcement body under the DPDP Act. 3. Target this Legal Point: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 2 of 28

DPDP Act 2023 Challenged in SC for Undermining RTI, State Surveillance, Fines Up to ₹250 Crore

Q: Which constitutional article was interpreted by the Supreme Court to recognize the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right?

Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), In the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India case (2017), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: 1. It amends the Right to Information Act, 2005 to remove the 'public interest override' clause for disclosing personal information. 2. It imposes penalties that can extend up to ₹500 crore for data fiduciaries in case of a data breach. 3. The Act classifies journalists collecting personal data for investigations as 'data fiduciaries', subject to its obligations. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, replacing the conditional exemption with an absolute bar on 'personal information'. Statement 2 is incorrect: The maximum penalty under the Act is ₹250 crore, not ₹500 crore. Statement 3 is correct: The Act's definition of 'data fiduciary' is broad enough to include journalists processing personal data for their work, as highlighted in the petitions.

Q: What is the maximum financial penalty prescribed under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, as mentioned in the news article?

₹250 Crore, The article explicitly states that the DPDP Act prescribes high penalties 'rising up to Rs 250 crore'. This is a key data point for prelims. The other figures are plausible distractors given the scale of penalties in other regulations.

Q: The primary constitutional principle invoked by petitioners to challenge the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in the Supreme Court is:

Proportionality Test, The petitions argue that the Act's restrictions on the Right to Information and press freedom fail the 'proportionality test' established in the Puttaswamy judgment. This test requires that any law restricting fundamental rights must pursue a legitimate aim, be the least restrictive means, and have in-built safeguards. The other doctrines, while important in constitutional law, are not the central argument highlighted in the article.

PolityCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

17 Feb 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:DPDP Act 2023Section 44(3)Penalty up to ₹250 croreSection 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

Bodies:Supreme Court of IndiaData Protection Board of India

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Supreme Court admits petitions challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, citing violations of the Right to Information and freedom of the press.

2.Key issues include amendment to RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) removing 'public interest override', onerous obligations for journalists as 'data fiduciaries', and lack of independence in the Data Protection Board.

3.The constitutional challenge hinges on the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment's 'proportionality test', arguing the Act fails to be the least restrictive measure for privacy.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has admitted petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The core argument is that the Act's amendments to the RTI Act create an absolute bar on disclosing personal information, crippling transparency, investigative journalism, and expanding state surveillance powers without adequate safeguards.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Act ChallengedDigital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

SC BenchConstitution Bench of 5 Judges

Max Penalty Under Act₹250 Crore

Key RTI AmendmentSection 44(3) of DPDP amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

Hearing MonthMarch 2026

1-Minute Revision

›Act Challenged: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
›SC Bench: Constitution Bench of 5 Judges
›Target this Data: Maximum penalty under DPDP Act is ₹250 crore.
›Target this Nodal Body: Data Protection Board of India is the enforcement body under the DPDP Act.
›Target this Legal Point: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Constitutional Challenge

The Supreme Court admits petitions arguing the DPDP Act 2023 violates the Right to Information and fails the Puttaswamy proportionality test.

📰

RTI vs Privacy

The Act amends the RTI Act to remove the 'public interest override', creating an absolute bar on disclosing any personal information.

🔍

Chilling Effect on Journalism

Journalists could be classified as 'data fiduciaries', facing consent requirements and penalties up to ₹250 crore, deterring investigative reporting.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The DPDP Act 2023 was enacted to safeguard digital privacy, following the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India judgment (2017) that recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Act aims to regulate the processing of digital personal data but has been criticized for its potential conflict with the transparency mandate of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Core Analysis & Implications

The constitutional challenge raises three major issues. First, the amendment to RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) removes the crucial 'public interest override', allowing public authorities to withhold any 'personal information' regardless of its link to public activity, potentially shielding corruption. Second, classifying journalists as 'data fiduciaries' imposes infeasible consent and erasure requirements (Section 12), coupled with draconian penalties, creating a chilling effect. Third, Section 36 grants the government sweeping powers to access data without independent oversight, while the Data Protection Board's appointment process lacks independence, raising concerns of executive control.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench hearing in March 2026 will be pivotal. The Court will apply the 'proportionality test' from Puttaswamy to determine if the Act's restrictions on RTI and press freedom are the least intrusive means to achieve privacy. The outcome could mandate amendments to reintroduce a public interest test, carve out exemptions for journalism, and ensure an independent regulatory board, shaping India's data governance framework for decades.

Key Facts at a Glance

Act ChallengedDigital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

SC BenchConstitution Bench of 5 Judges

Max Penalty Under Act₹250 Crore

Key RTI AmendmentSection 44(3) of DPDP amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

Hearing MonthMarch 2026

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which constitutional article was interpreted by the Supreme Court to recognize the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023:

1. It amends the Right to Information Act, 2005 to remove the 'public interest override' clause for disclosing personal information.

2. It imposes penalties that can extend up to ₹500 crore for data fiduciaries in case of a data breach.

3. The Act classifies journalists collecting personal data for investigations as 'data fiduciaries', subject to its obligations.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, Banking, SSC

What is the maximum financial penalty prescribed under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, as mentioned in the news article?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

The primary constitutional principle invoked by petitioners to challenge the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in the Supreme Court is:

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →

PreviousNGT Clears ₹81,000 Cr Great Nicobar Project; Bodhan AI for Education; Fertiliser Subsidy Reaches ₹2 Trillion Next Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings in UP Mistaken Identity Arrests, Cites Article 21, SC Precedents

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

CEC Removal Procedure Matches SC Judge; 2023 Act Appointment Panel Challenged Under Anoop Baranwal

Opposition demands CEC removal after leaked objections. CEC removal requires special majority in both Houses (same as SC judge), making it politically difficult. Meanwhile, the 2023 Act for appointing CEC/ECs, which replaced CJI with a Cabinet Minister, faces a split verdict in the Supreme Court. This touches Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal judgment, and independence of the Election Commission.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Seeks Replies on NRC ID Cards: 3.11 Crore Await Documents, 19 Lakh Excluded

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre and Assam government to respond to pleas seeking issuance of identity cards to 3.11 crore people included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) 2019, while another 19 lakh excluded persons await the appeal process. This case is critical for exam aspirants as it tests knowledge of the Citizenship Act, NRC process, and Assam Accord provisions.

Polity Current Affairs

Election Commission's SIR Deletes 13 Crore Names from Draft Rolls; Raises Questions on Population & Voting Rights

The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has led to the deletion of 13 crore names from draft rolls, including nearly one-third of Delhi's electorate. This article by a former Chief Election Commissioner uses satire to highlight the absurdity of treating electoral roll deletions as a solution to India's population problem, while drawing parallels with the Assam NRC and warning of potential disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds EC's SIR, Citizenship Under MHA; 13 Crore Deletions, Aadhaar Alternative Proposed

The Supreme Court upheld the EC's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which deleted over 13 crore names, but clarified that citizenship determination is solely under the Ministry of Home Affairs. This raises critical debates on voter rights, due process, and the viability of Aadhaar-based verification as a cost-effective, inclusive alternative to house-to-house surveys.

Polity Current Affairs

UCC: Uttarakhand Enforces Since Jan 2025, 3 State Bills Await Assent, Target 21 NDA States by 2029

The UCC debate is back with Uttarakhand implementing it in Jan 2025 and three other NDA states passing bills. Home Minister Amit Shah targets all 21 NDA-ruled states by 2029. The issue directly tests constitutional principles – Directive Principles vs Fundamental Rights – and is a hot topic for UPSC prelims and mains.

Polity Current Affairs

Justice Liberhan Commission: Babri Masjid Demolition Was a Well-Planned Civil Conspiracy

Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, head of the one-man Commission of Inquiry into the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, passed away. His 2009 report concluded the demolition was a meticulously planned civil conspiracy involving RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, BJP, and Shiv Sena — a finding he never retracted despite the 2020 CBI court acquittals.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Proposes Exempting Current Class 6 from Three-Language Policy; Centre Seeks More Time

The Supreme Court has proposed exempting the current Class 6 batch from the mandatory three-language policy, suggesting implementation from January 1, 2027. The Centre has sought more time to decide, while the court has asked for details on teacher availability and infrastructure.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds Telangana MLA Danam Nagender Disqualification Under Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule)

Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of Telangana MLA Danam Nagender for defecting from BRS to Congress. The court rejected the 'ghar wapsi' argument, reinforcing that voluntarily giving up party membership under the Tenth Schedule cannot be condoned by claiming regret. This judgment reaffirms judicial review over Speaker's decisions in anti-defection cases.

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

DPDP Act 2023 Challenged in SC for Undermining RTI, State Surveillance, Fines Up to ₹250 Crore

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Constitutional Challenge

RTI vs Privacy

Chilling Effect on Journalism

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance