{"id":15884,"date":"2026-02-19T05:28:23","date_gmt":"2026-02-19T05:28:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=15884"},"modified":"2026-02-19T05:35:04","modified_gmt":"2026-02-19T05:35:04","slug":"the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/","title":{"rendered":"The Constitutional Test: Proportionality and the Puttaswamy Judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"background-of-the-challenge\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Background_of_the_Challenge\"><\/span>Background of the Challenge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Three separate Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the Rules notified under it. The petitioners argue that while the legislation claims to safeguard digital privacy, it simultaneously undermines the Right to Information (RTI), hampers investigative journalism, and expands the scope of state surveillance. The Court has admitted the petitions, issued notice to the Union government, and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of five judges for hearing. However, it has declined to grant an interim stay on the operation of the Act.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Background_of_the_Challenge\" >Background of the Challenge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Who_Filed_the_Petitions\" >Who Filed the Petitions<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Petitioners_at_a_Glance\" >Petitioners at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Original_RTI_Framework\" >Original RTI Framework<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#RTI_Balancing_Mechanism\" >RTI Balancing Mechanism<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Changes_Introduced_by_DPDP_Act\" >Changes Introduced by DPDP Act<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Comparison_Before_and_After_Amendment\" >Comparison: Before and After Amendment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Impact_on_Journalism\" >Impact on Journalism<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Documents_Commonly_Used_in_Investigations\" >Documents Commonly Used in Investigations<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Constitutional_Arguments\" >Constitutional Arguments<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#Legal_Principles_Invoked\" >Legal Principles Invoked<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-constitutional-test-proportionality-and-the-puttaswamy-judgment\/#A_Constitutional_Crossroads\" >A Constitutional Crossroads<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"who-filed-the-petitions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Who_Filed_the_Petitions\"><\/span>Who Filed the Petitions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitions have been filed by the National Campaign for People\u2019s Right to Information (NCPRI), transparency advocate Venkatesh Nayak, and The Reporters\u2019 Collective (TRC) Trust, a body of investigative journalists. Their central grievance concerns the amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This provision governs the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"petitioners-list\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Petitioners_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Petitioners at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>National Campaign for People\u2019s Right to Information (NCPRI)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Venkatesh Nayak (Transparency Advocate)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Reporters\u2019 Collective (TRC) Trust<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"original-rti-framework\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Original_RTI_Framework\"><\/span>Original RTI Framework<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Under the original framework of the RTI Act, personal information could be denied only if it had no relationship to any public activity or public interest, or if disclosure would result in an \u201cunwarranted invasion\u201d of an individual\u2019s privacy. Importantly, the law contained a public interest override. A Public Information Officer (PIO) retained the discretion to disclose even personal information if satisfied that the larger public interest justified such disclosure. This mechanism ensured a balance between privacy and transparency, particularly in matters involving public officials and the use of public resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rti-balancing-mechanism\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"RTI_Balancing_Mechanism\"><\/span>RTI Balancing Mechanism<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Privacy protection for individuals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Public interest override available<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>PIO discretion to disclose information<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Accountability of public officials maintained<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"changes-introduced-by-dpdp-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Changes_Introduced_by_DPDP_Act\"><\/span>Changes Introduced by DPDP Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The amendment brought by the DPDP Act removes this public interest override. Petitioners argue that this effectively extinguishes the statutory power of the PIO to weigh competing considerations of privacy and public interest. By doing so, it creates what they describe as an \u201cabsolute bar\u201d on disclosure of personal information, regardless of its relevance to public accountability. According to NCPRI, this change converts a carefully calibrated privacy exemption into a sweeping shield that could protect corrupt officials from scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparison-table\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_Before_and_After_Amendment\"><\/span>Comparison: Before and After Amendment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>RTI Act (Original)<\/th><th>After DPDP Amendment<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Public Interest Override<\/td><td>Available<\/td><td>Removed<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>PIO Discretion<\/td><td>Can disclose in larger public interest<\/td><td>Effectively eliminated<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Transparency<\/td><td>Balanced with privacy<\/td><td>Strong tilt toward secrecy<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Accountability<\/td><td>Enables scrutiny of public officials<\/td><td>May shield wrongdoing<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"impact-on-journalism\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impact_on_Journalism\"><\/span>Impact on Journalism<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The impact on journalism forms another major plank of the challenge. TRC contends that investigative reporting often relies on access to documents such as asset declarations, tender records, and official file notings materials that frequently contain personal data. By eliminating the public interest override, authorities may deny access to such records, even when they reveal wrongdoing or misuse of public funds. The petitioners argue that this would significantly weaken the press\u2019s role as a watchdog in a constitutional democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"documents-used-in-investigations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Documents_Commonly_Used_in_Investigations\"><\/span>Documents Commonly Used in Investigations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Asset declarations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tender records<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Official file notings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Public fund utilisation records<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"constitutional-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Constitutional_Arguments\"><\/span>Constitutional Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>All three petitions invoke the Supreme Court\u2019s 2017 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right and laid down the proportionality test for restrictions on fundamental freedoms. They contend that while protecting privacy is a legitimate aim, the removal of the balancing mechanism fails the proportionality standard. The amendment, they argue, is excessive and arbitrary because it sacrifices transparency without adequate safeguards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-principles-invoked\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principles_Invoked\"><\/span>Legal Principles Invoked<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Right to privacy as a fundamental right<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Proportionality test<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Balancing of competing rights<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection against arbitrary state action<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"constitutional-crossroads\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Constitutional_Crossroads\"><\/span>A Constitutional Crossroads<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case thus presents a constitutional crossroads between two foundational democratic values: privacy and transparency. The forthcoming decision of the Constitution Bench will determine whether the data protection regime can coexist with the right to information or whether the balance will tilt decisively in favour of secrecy. The outcome is likely to have lasting implications for open governance, public accountability, and press freedom in India.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Background of the Challenge Three separate Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the Rules notified under it. The petitioners argue that while the legislation claims to safeguard digital privacy, it simultaneously undermines the Right to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":546,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[775,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-15884","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-constitutional-law","7":"tag-constitutional-law","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/546"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}