Bench
Chief Justice Surya Kant
Presiding Judge
Bench lead
Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Judge
Bench member
Justice V.M. Pancholi
Judge
Bench member
Who Filed the Case
Petitioners
Venkatesh Nayak
Petitioner
National Campaign for People’s Right to Information
Petitioner
The Reporters’ Collective
Petitioner
Nitin Sethi
Petitioner
Geeta Seshu
Petitioner
Anjali Bhardwaj
Petitioner
Respondent
Union of India
Respondent
Petitioner counsel
Indira Jaising, Mishi Choudhary, Paras Nath Singh, Prasanth Sugathan, Jayant Malik, Kabir Darshan Singh, Syed Mohammad Haroon, Sadeeq Ur Rahman, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Gupta, Eesha Bakshi, Uday Bhatia, Naman Basoya, Abishek Jebaraj, A. Reyna Shruti & others
Respondent counsel
Tushar Mehta, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Madhav Sinhal, Rajat Nair, Shilpa Ohri, Mayank Pandey, Chander Uday Singh, Cheryl D’souza, Bidya Mohanty, Katyayani Suhrud, Abhishek K., Anushka Singh & others
Present Update
Snapshot
Notice issued; no interim stay
On 16 February 2026, the Bench heard the matter, issued notice to parties, and declined interim stay on the DPDP Act.
Last hearing
16 February 2026
Next hearing
To be updated
Case number
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 177/2026
Brief of the Case
The petitions challenge key provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025 on grounds including executive control over the Data Protection Board, broad state access powers, vague breach thresholds, and the narrowing of access to information through the RTI amendment.
Salient Issues in the Case
Independence of the Data Protection Board
The challenge questions executive dominance over the selection and functioning of the DPBI and whether that undermines separation of powers.
State Surveillance and Gag Orders
The petitions challenge broad state access powers under Section 36 and Rule 23(2), arguing that they enable opaque disclosure of personal data without clear statutory limits.
Undefined Significant Breaches
Section 33(1) is challenged for penalizing significant breaches without clearly defining what makes a breach significant.
Live Updates Thread
Keep the newest update first. Every earlier update should move downward.
Notice issued; interim stay declined
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V.M. Pancholi heard the matter, issued notice to parties, and declined to stay the DPDP Act at this stage.
Article 32 challenge filed
A writ petition challenged Sections 17(1)(c), 17(2), 33(1), 36 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 and Rules 17 and 23(2) of the DPDP Rules, 2025, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.
Hearing History
A compact procedural history of the matter.
Original Case Files
Upload source documents here and viewers can open them directly from the page.