PolityGovernance
News 3 of 24

SC Refers DPDP Act vs RTI Act Challenge to Constitution Bench Over Removal of Section 8(1)(j) Public Interest Override

PolityHIGH
Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link
19 Feb 2026
~2 min
Source: The Hindu
Key Data:DPDP Act, 2023RTI Act, 2005₹250 croreSection 8(1)(j)Section 44(3)
Bodies:Supreme Court of India
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.Supreme Court refers constitutional challenge to Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, to a Constitution Bench.

2.The amendment removes the 'public interest override', potentially creating a blanket ban on disclosing any personal information, threatening transparency.

3.The legal paradox highlighted: Section 7 of DPDP Act allows state to process personal data without consent, but the RTI amendment prevents citizens from seeking similar transparency.

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act's amendment to the RTI Act to a Constitution Bench. The core conflict is the DPDP Act's removal of the crucial 'public interest override' from Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which critics argue creates a blanket ban on disclosing personal information and threatens state accountability and press freedom.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

DPDP Act Year2023
RTI Act Year2005
Maximum Fine Under DPDP Act₹250 crore
Amended RTI SectionSection 8(1)(j)
Amending DPDP SectionSection 44(3)

1-Minute Revision

  • ›DPDP Act Year: 2023
  • ›RTI Act Year: 2005
  • ›Target this Legal Point: Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
  • ›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench).
  • ›Target this Data: Maximum penalty of ₹250 crore under DPDP Act for non-compliance.

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

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

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Which constitutional body has referred the petitions challenging the amendment to the RTI Act to a Constitution Bench?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements regarding the amendment to the RTI Act by the DPDP Act:

1. The amendment removes the 'public interest override' provision from Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

2. The amendment was effected by Section 7 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

3. The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging this amendment to a Constitution Bench.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

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

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

What is the primary constitutional concern raised by the petitions referred to the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench, as per the article?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to 2023 EC Appointment Law to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners to a 5-judge Constitution Bench after a split verdict. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee, raising concerns about executive dominance and independence of the Election Commission. This case is crucial for exam aspirants as it involves constitutional principles of independence of constitutional bodies and separation of powers.

Polity Current Affairs

SC 9-Judge Bench Rules BWSSB Triple Test Not Binding for IRC 2020 Section 2(p)

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench has held that the landmark 1978 'Triple Test' for defining 'industry' under the ID Act will not be a binding precedent for interpreting the identical provision in the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020. This could weaken worker protections just as more workers move to the private sector post-liberalisation.

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

TN Withdraws RTI Exemption for Law and Order Dept Under Section 24(4); 2,000+ Citizens Seek CJI Intervention on SIR

Tamil Nadu government withdrew its controversial order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the RTI Act after widespread backlash. Separately, over 2,000 citizens have written to the Chief Justice of India to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and initiate suo motu proceedings against the Election Commission's conduct.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Strength Increased to 38 Judges: Will It Reduce Pendency and Free Up Constitution Benches?

Parliament has passed a bill increasing Supreme Court judge strength from 34 to 38, aimed at enabling regular Constitution Benches and reducing case backlog (92,101 cases pending as of Jan 1, 2026). However, past Law Commission reports question if more judges alone can solve pendency, and the real impact depends on filling vacancies and judicial management.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Refers 2023 CEC Appointment Law to CJI for Constitution Bench; Excludes CJI from Selection Panel

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of CEC and ECs to the CJI for consideration of a Constitution Bench. The law replaced the CJI with a Cabinet minister in the selection panel, raising concerns about executive influence. A split verdict between two judges led to the referral.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Seeks Centre Reply on PIL: Minors' Online Accounts Without Valid Contracts Under Section 11 Indian Contract Act

A PIL filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance has challenged the practice of allowing minors to independently sign up for digital platforms without verified parental consent. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre, highlighting the legal gap between Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act (barring minors from contracts) and existing IT/DPDP rules.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Extends Section 498A (BNS Section 85) Protection to Live-In Partners 'In Nature of Marriage'

The Supreme Court has ruled that women in live-in relationships 'in the nature of marriage' are entitled to protection from domestic cruelty under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS). This landmark judgment extends criminal law safeguards beyond formal marriage, recognizing that domestic abuse stems from power imbalance, not marital status.