‘Can’t Have Sweeping Provision To Access Individual’s Info’ NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday said invocation of public interest could not be grounds for seeking sweeping access to private information of persons holding public offices.”The right to access information in public interest must be balanced with the right to privacy of individuals. There cannot be a provision allowing sweeping access to an individual’s private information,” said a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, while agreeing to entertain a petition seeking to challenge the restrictions built into the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act to safeguard privacy.Israel Iran WarUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: Saudi intercepts drone headed to Shaybah oil field; Israeli strikes 10 Hezbollah targets in Beirut’Legitimate targets’: Iran issues warning to US tech firms including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, NvidiaSafe Passage For Indian Vessels: Iran clears Indian-flagged ships in Hormuz; US, Europe, Israel face curbsAppearing for a petitioner, senior advocate Indira Jaising said the provision in the Right to Information Act that allowed access to private data about the background of a person appointed to a public or constitutional office stood nullified because of the DPDP Act.She said the state could access any data of any person under the guise of public order which could lead to state surveillance of citizens. The bench said ultimately, the court would have to define what data could be classified as public and private.Under the Information and Technology Act, Jaising said, the person whose data was illegally accessed was liable to be compensated. But under the DPDP Act, the compensation would go to govt and not to the person whose data was accessed illegally, she complained.She said Data Protection Board of India, the primary regulator of data privacy, did not have judicial oversight though it would be deciding competing rights. The bench agreed that in such situations, there should be a judicially trained mind on the board. “These matters require urgent adjudication,” the bench said, and agreed to list it as soon as possible.SC on Feb 16 had entertained three petitions which had alleged that the amendments to the RTI Act necessitated by the DPDP Act had reduced right to information to something that existed only on paper, as it provided an excuse to the authorities to deny information by classifying it as ‘personal’. However, it had refused to stay the operation of the Act, whose provisions have been justified by citing the Supreme Court verdict in Puttaswami case, where right to privacy was recognised as one of the fundamental rights.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos“Public Interest Will Guide Every Decision,” PM Modi Reassures Nation Amid Global UncertaintyIndian Crew Hit In Iran War Shipping Chaos: 3 Dead, 4 InjuredCentre Urges Citizens To Avoid Panic Booking As India Assures Stable LPG, Fuel Supply Amid WarChief Of Integrated Staff Air Marshal Dixit Says India Not Dealing With Same Pakistan After Operation SindoorEpstein Chants Greet Hardeep Puri In Lok Sabha Amid Rahul Gandhi’s Dig At Minister, Birla Steps In“Energy Security Compromised”: Rahul Gandhi Sounds Alarm In Parliament’India’s Fuel Supply Stable’: Hardeep Singh Puri Rejects LPG Shortage, Oil Crisis Fears In Lok Sabha’I Heard A Cracker Sound…’: Farooq Abdullah Opens Up About Assassination AttemptRahul Gandhi Warns Of Fuel Crisis Amid Middle East Conflict, BJP MP Dubey Hits Back With Soros JibeAmid US-Iran War, First Crude Tanker Shenlong Safely Reaches Mumbai Port Through Strait Of Hormuz123PhotostoriesLPG, Induction, Air fryer, or Microwave: Which is cheaper and efficient to cook with8 high-protein no-cook breakfast dishes to save LPGExclusive – Ridhima Pandit accuses Vanshaj Singh of inciting hate; says she received ra*e and death threats, claims Karan Patel slept through The 50 and wanted to quitThin but diagnosed with fatty liver? Doctors explain why lean people can develop NAFLD and how lifestyle changes can reverse it6 foods to add to coconut water to make it an even more hydrating morning drinkOprah Winfrey once said, “Turn your wounds into wisdom”: 4 lessons it teaches studentsNormal cholesterol but early heart attack risk? Doctors say Lipoprotein(a) test can reveal hidden danger6 superbikes famous for their thrilling engine roarAhead of ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ release, revisiting Ranveer Singh’s iconic characters like Khilji, Bajirao, Rocky Randhawa9 effective ways to fix excess salt in curries and sabzi123Hot PicksStrait of Hormuz naval minesChina Yj-12 missileUCC gender biasCovid vaccine compensation policyIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays March 2026Bank Holidays MarchTop TrendingCardi BIPL Teams Match ScheduleThe RockUS Stock Market NewsLPG Shortage in MumbaiFixed-term employmentJones ActIran US WarReliance Oil Refinery in USMiddle East War
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday said invocation of public interest could not be grounds for seeking sweeping access to private information of persons holding public offices.“The right to access information in public interest must be balanced with the right to privacy of individuals. There cannot be a provision allowing sweeping access to an individual’s private information,” said a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, while agreeing to entertain a petition seeking to challenge the restrictions built into the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act to safeguard privacy.Appearing for a petitioner, senior advocate Indira Jaising said the provision in the Right to Information Act that allowed access to private data about the background of a person appointed to a public or constitutional office stood nullified because of the DPDP Act.She said the state could access any data of any person under the guise of public order which could lead to state surveillance of citizens. The bench said ultimately, the court would have to define what data could be classified as public and private.Under the Information and Technology Act, Jaising said, the person whose data was illegally accessed was liable to be compensated. But under the DPDP Act, the compensation would go to govt and not to the person whose data was accessed illegally, she complained.She said Data Protection Board of India, the primary regulator of data privacy, did not have judicial oversight though it would be deciding competing rights. The bench agreed that in such situations, there should be a judicially trained mind on the board. “These matters require urgent adjudication,” the bench said, and agreed to list it as soon as possible.SC on Feb 16 had entertained three petitions which had alleged that the amendments to the RTI Act necessitated by the DPDP Act had reduced right to information to something that existed only on paper, as it provided an excuse to the authorities to deny information by classifying it as ‘personal’. However, it had refused to stay the operation of the Act, whose provisions have been justified by citing the Supreme Court verdict in Puttaswami case, where right to privacy was recognised as one of the fundamental rights.
