DPDP Act S.17(2) Exemptions
Definition
Provisions of India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 allowing the Central Government to exempt State instrumentalities from the Act's requirements in the interests of sovereignty, security, or public order; the breadth of these exemptions has been identified as a potential source of conflict with the Puttaswamy proportionality standard.
- Statute
- India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
- Section
- 17(2)
- Grants power to
- Central Government
- Effect
- Exempts State instrumentalities from the Act's requirements
- Stated grounds
- Sovereignty, security, public order
Common questions
Why do commentators flag section 17(2) as constitutionally risky?+
The Puttaswamy judgment set out a proportionality test for any state action limiting privacy, requiring the least restrictive means and procedural safeguards. Section 17(2) exemptions are broadly worded and can be applied without the same case-by-case justification, which critics argue may not survive a proportionality challenge if tested in court.
Does a section 17(2) exemption remove all data protection obligations from an exempted agency?+
It removes specified obligations under the DPDP Act for the exempted class of processing, not necessarily every legal constraint on that agency. Other statutory and constitutional protections, including judicial review of executive action, can still apply independently of the DPDP Act exemption.
Related terms
- Consent Imbalance
- The structural condition recognised by EU data-protection authorities and courts under which formal consent to biometric collection is not freely given because...
- Informational Privacy
- The dimension of the right to privacy, articulated in Justice Chandrachud's Puttaswamy 2017 opinion, that grants individuals the right to control information...
- Proportionality Test (Puttaswamy)
- The four-part standard from Puttaswamy 2017 for assessing the constitutionality of state interference with privacy: (1) legitimate state aim, (2) suitability of...
- Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (UK)
- UK statute enacted in direct response to S and Marper v. UK, which reformed the retention framework for DNA profiles, fingerprints, and...
- Puttaswamy 2017
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1: nine-judge bench Supreme Court of India judgment holding that privacy...
- R (Bridges) V. Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2020)
- UK Court of Appeal decision holding that the deployment of automated facial recognition by South Wales Police lacked a sufficiently clear and...
- S and Marper V. UK (2008)
- European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber judgment holding that indefinite retention of fingerprints, cellular samples, and DNA profiles of unconvicted individuals...
- Section 57 (Aadhaar Act, Struck Down)
- The provision of the Aadhaar Act 2016 that permitted private companies and individuals to require Aadhaar authentication for their own purposes, struck...
- UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India)
- The statutory authority established by the Aadhaar Act 2016 to operate the Aadhaar biometric identification system, oversee enrolment, and administer the authentication...