The provisions “go to the heart of human rights jurisprudence, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and the democratic promise of a free society,” the petition filed in the Delhi High Court said. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (February 18, 2026) asked the Union government to respond to a petition challenging certain provisions of the Digital Privacy Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 for allegedly enabling surveillance and excessive control over the executive and also undermining the independence of the judiciary.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia issued a notice to the Central Government on the petition filed by Mr Chandresh Jain and posted it for hearing in April.
Also read | Too little, too late: the 2025 privacy rules
The petition argued that Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 44 of the DPDP Act and its rules allow for uncontrolled executive access to data; blocking without hearing; absence of meaningful consent; opaque exceptions; dilution of the Right to Information Act; and the Data Protection Executive Board and Court of Appeal.
“The DPDP Act creates a closed loop of executive power where the first arbitrator (Data Protection Board) and the appellate body (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) remain under executive control, while Section 39 expressly prohibits the jurisdiction of civil courts. This structure is constitutionally unsustainable and violates the human rights requirement of an independent judge,” the plaintiff said.
The provisions “go to the heart of human rights jurisprudence, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and the democratic promise of a free society,” the plea said.
“The DPDP Act and the DPDP Rules together enable broad state surveillance, long-term retention of personal and behavioral data, excessive executive control over the Data Protection Board, and opaque mechanisms for obtaining personal data without consent or transparency,” the petition states.
“The challenged provisions together violate the constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, informational autonomy, freedom of expression and procedural justice. The provisions violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and independence of courts,” he added.
The cause of action also argued that the law did not create a “legal-protective” privacy framework and that the provisions must be struck down, read down or severed to be constitutional.
Published – 18 Feb 2026 21:01 IST