Does privacy survive death in India? Understand Section 14 of the DPDP Act, Rule 13, its 13 May 2027 commencement date, nominee rights, digital assets and limits on posthumous data rights.
ABSTRACT
Death does not necessarily end a person’s digital presence. Emails, cloud-stored files, private communications, medical information, financial records and social-media profiles may continue to exist after the individual dies. This raises an important legal question: what happens to personal data after the death of the person to whom it relates?
The expression “posthumous data privacy” is useful for describing this problem, but it should not be mistaken for an independent statutory or constitutional right recognized under Indian law. Section 14 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) creates a statutory nomination mechanism through which another individual may exercise the Data Principal’s rights under the Act and Rules in the event of death or incapacity.
However, an important point must be made at the outset: Section 14 has been enacted but is not yet in force as of September 2026. Under the commencement notification issued on 13 November 2025, Section 14 falls within the provisions scheduled to come into force 18 months after publication, making 13 May 2027 the scheduled commencement date. Rule 13 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 contains the procedural framework relevant to the exercise of the right to nominate. The Rules were notified in November 2025, while the provisions connected with Sections 11–17 of the DPDP Act are scheduled to commence on 13 May 2027.
This article examines what Section 14 is designed to do, what a nominee may be able to exercise once the provision becomes operational, and why nomination under the DPDP Act should not be confused with inheritance, ownership of digital assets, account access or an inheritable constitutional right to privacy.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS POSTHUMOUS DATA PRIVACY IN INDIA?
A person’s digital footprint may survive long after death. Emails may remain stored on servers. Photographs may continue to exist in cloud accounts. Social-media profiles may remain active or be memorialized. Financial and medical information may remain subject to contractual, regulatory or statutory retention requirements. Private communications may also continue to exist on messaging platforms. This creates several different legal questions, which should not be treated as one issue. The first concerns personal data and data-protection rights. The second concerns the privacy and personality rights of a deceased person. The third concerns access to online accounts. The fourth concerns ownership and succession of digital or financial assets.
These questions may overlap in practice but they do not necessarily have the same legal answer. The DPDP Act addresses part of this problem through Section 14. The provision is titled “Right to nominate” and allows a Data Principal to nominate another individual who may exercise the Data Principal’s rights under the Act and Rules in the event of death or incapacity. The provision is therefore better understood as a mechanism for exercising statutory data-protection rights rather than as a law of digital inheritance.
A crucial current-law clarification :
As of 7 September 2026, Section 14 is not yet operational. The commencement notification dated 13 November 2025 places Sections 11 to 17 of the DPDP Act, including Section 14, in the 18-month commencement tranche. Accordingly, Section 14 is scheduled to come into force on 13 May 2027.
Rule 13 of the DPDP Rules contains the procedural framework relevant to the exercise of the right to nominate. The Rules must be read together with their applicable commencement framework. Therefore, this article discusses what the enacted framework provides and how it is expected to operate once the relevant provisions come into force, rather than suggesting that Section 14 is already an operational right.
SECTION 14 OF THE DPDP ACT: WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY PROVIDE?
Section 14 is titled “Right to nominate.”
Section 14(1) provides that a Data Principal may nominate another individual, in the prescribed manner, who may exercise the rights of the Data Principal under the Act and the Rules in the event of the Data Principal’s death or incapacity.
Section 14(2) deals with incapacity and refers to the inability of the Data Principal to exercise rights because of unsoundness of mind or infirmity of body.
The wording of the provision is important.
Section 14 does not say that the nominee becomes:
- the owner of the deceased person’s personal data;
- the owner of the deceased person’s social-media account;
- the successor to all digital assets;
- the holder of the deceased person’s passwords;
- the legal heir of the deceased person; or
- the beneficiary of all economic interests connected with the person’s digital presence.
Instead, the nominee is given the ability to exercise the rights of the Data Principal under the statutory framework , subject to the Act, the Rules and applicable legal or contractual restrictions.
This distinction is central to understanding the provision.
IS SECTION 14 ALREADY IN FORCE?
| QUESTION | LEGAL POSITION |
| Is section 14 in force? | No, scheduled for 13 May 2027 |
| Does a nominee inherit Personal Data? | No |
| Does a nominee automatically inherit cryptocurrency? | No |
| Does a nominee automatically receive passwords | No |
| Is a section 14 nominee the same as a legal heir? | No |
| Is section 14 a substitute for a will? | No |
No. This is one of the most important points concerning the DPDP Act as of September 2026. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 was enacted earlier, but its provisions were designed to commence in phases. The commencement notification dated 13 November 2025 places Sections 11–17, including Section 14, in the tranche commencing 18 months after publication.
Therefore:
Notification date: 13 November 2025
Scheduled commencement period: 18 months later
Scheduled commencement date: 13 May 2027
Thus, as of 7 September 2026, Section 14 has been enacted but is not yet in force.
This distinction matters because describing Section 14 as though it already gives individuals an operational post-death data right could mislead readers about the present legal position.
HOW WILL THE SECTION 14 NOMINATION MECHANISM WORK?
Once the relevant provisions become operational, Section 14 will operate as part of the broader rights framework available to a Data Principal.
The nominee’s position should therefore be understood in relation to the rights available under the DPDP Act rather than as a general power over the deceased person’s entire digital life.
Rule 13 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 contains the procedural framework relevant to the exercise of the right to nominate. Under the Rules’ commencement framework, Rule 13 is scheduled to come into force 18 months after the publication of the Rules.
Accordingly, a nominee’s ability to act should not be described as unlimited.
The statutory mechanism is better expressed as follows:
Section 14 provides a mechanism for a nominated individual to exercise applicable Data Principal rights after death or incapacity, subject to the Act, the Rules, applicable law and the relevant Data Fiduciary’s prescribed procedures.
This formulation avoids treating nomination as equivalent to ownership or succession.
WHAT RIGHTS MAY A NOMINEE EXERCISE?
The answer must be approached carefully because Section 14 operates through the rights available under the DPDP framework.
The broader framework includes rights relating to access to information, correction and erasure, grievance redressal and nomination.
However, these rights are not absolute even during the lifetime of a Data Principal. They operate within the statutory conditions and exceptions contained in the Act.
For example, a request for erasure cannot simply override a separate legal obligation requiring data to be retained.
Therefore, a nominee should not be understood as receiving an unrestricted power to delete every piece of information relating to a deceased person.
The practical position may be summarized as follows:
| ISSUE | POSITION |
| Exercise of applicable principal rights of the Data Principal under the DPDP Framework. | Potentially available to the nominee once section 14 becomes operational |
| Ownership of personal data | Not transferred by section 14 |
| Ownership of digital assets | NO |
| Automatic Inheritance of bank balances | NO |
| Automatic Inheritance of cryptocurrency | NO |
| Automatic access to passwords | NO |
| Automatic takeover of social media accounts | NO |
| Unlimited deletion of all data | NO |
| Creation of a general constitutional right to posthumous privacy | NO |
The distinction between these categories is essential.
POSTHUMOUS PRIVACY AND THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
1.JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) V. UNION OF INDIA
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a constitutionally protected right under Article 21. The judgment also recognized informational privacy as an important aspect of privacy in an information-driven society. However, Puttaswamy should not be read as establishing an independent, inheritable constitutional right over a deceased person’s personal data. The constitutional recognition of privacy provides the broader jurisprudential background for data protection. Section 14, by contrast, is a specific statutory mechanism dealing with the exercise of Data Principal rights following death or incapacity. This distinction prevents the constitutional right to privacy and the statutory nomination mechanism from being treated as identical concepts.
2.DEEPA JAYAKUMAR V. A.L. VIJAY
In Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2642, the Madras High Court considered questions concerning privacy, reputation and personality rights after the death of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. The dispute involved attempts to restrain works based on her life. The Court considered whether privacy and reputation enjoyed during a person’s lifetime could be asserted after death by legal heirs. The decision treated privacy as a personal right and rejected the proposition that such rights become inheritable in the same manner as property. The case is significant for this article because it demonstrates the distinction between posthumous privacy claims under general constitutional and private-law principles and the later statutory mechanism created by Section 14 of the DPDP Act. It should not, however, be presented as a direct interpretation of Section 14, because the case predates the operationalization of the DPDP framework.
3.RUBA AHMED & ANR. V. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.
In Ruba Ahmed & Anr. v. Hansal Mehta & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3596, the Delhi High Court considered claims relating to privacy and the portrayal of deceased persons in the film Faraaz. The Court considered whether privacy rights of deceased individuals could be asserted by their legal heirs and treated privacy as essentially a right in personam rather than a right automatically inheritable by legal representatives. The decision is useful for understanding the pre-DPDP judicial position. However, it should not be described as a final judicial interpretation of Section 14. The DPDP Act creates a specific statutory mechanism that did not form the basis of those earlier proceedings. Indian judicial decisions have generally treated the right to privacy as personal and not automatically inheritable by legal heirs
4.KRISHNA KISHORE SINGH V. SARLA A. SARAOGI
A further relevant decision is Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., CS(COMM) 187/2021, decided by the Delhi High Court on 11 July 2023.The case concerned claims arising from a film based on the life of actor Sushant Singh Rajput and involved arguments relating to privacy, publicity and personality rights after death. The Delhi High Court considered whether rights of privacy, publicity and personality claimed on behalf of a deceased person could be inherited by legal representatives. The case provides pre-DPDP jurisprudential context concerning posthumous privacy, publicity and personality rights; it does not interpret Section 14 of the DPDP Act. It reinforces an important distinction for the present discussion: a person’s privacy and personality rights are not automatically converted into inheritable property merely because the person has died. This does not eliminate the possibility of other legal claims involving property, intellectual property, contractual rights, defamation or other legally protected interests. It simply means that Section 14 should not be described as creating a general property right in the deceased person’s privacy.
SECTION 14 VS. DIGITAL INHERITANCE
One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding Section 14 is that a nominee automatically inherits everything connected with a person’s digital life. That is incorrect. A digital assets can contain several legally distinct categories. For example, a deceased person may have:
- money in a bank account;
- cryptocurrency;
- shares or securities;
- a monetized social-media account;
- a website or domain name;
- intellectual property;
- photographs;
- private emails;
- cloud documents;
- medical records;
- subscription accounts; and
- business-related digital accounts.
These items do not necessarily have the same legal character. A digital asset is not necessarily personal data merely because it exists or is stored in digital form. Its legal treatment may instead depend on whether it involves personal data, property, contractual rights, intellectual property, financial interests or another legally recognized category.
Some may involve property or succession law. Others may involve contractual rights. Some may contain personal data. Others may involve intellectual property or financial regulation. Section 14 cannot be treated as a universal succession provision for all of them.
It is also important to distinguish digital assets from personal data. A digital asset such as cryptocurrency, a domain name or copyright is not automatically personal data merely because it exists in digital form. Its ownership, transfer and succession may therefore be governed by separate legal or contractual rules.
Does A DPDP Nominee Inherit Digital Assets?
No. Section 14 concerns the exercise of Data Principal rights under the DPDP framework. It does not itself transfer ownership of cryptocurrency, bank balances, intellectual property, websites, domain names or other digital property. Ownership and succession must be determined under the laws and legal arrangements applicable to the particular asset.
EMAIL AND PRIVATE MESSAGES
Email accounts and messaging platforms illustrate why data protection and account access must be separated.A deceased person’s email account may contain:
- the deceased person’s own personal data;
- correspondence containing other people’s personal data;
- business information;
- confidential communications;
- contractual records; and
- information belonging to third parties.
A Section 14 nomination should therefore not automatically be treated as a right to receive the person’s password or unrestricted access to every message.
The platform’s contractual terms, security procedures, applicable law and the rights of other individuals may also become relevant.
For example, a private message written by another person may contain that person’s personal information. Giving a nominee unrestricted access to all communications could therefore raise issues that extend beyond the deceased person’s own data.
SOCIAL-MEDIA ACCOUNTS AFTER DEATH
Social-media accounts create another important distinction.
A nominee may potentially exercise applicable data-protection rights once Section 14 becomes operational. However, this does not mean that the nominee automatically becomes the owner of the account or obtains unrestricted access to it.
Platforms may have their own procedures concerning:
- memorialization;
- account closure;
- verification of death;
- authorized representatives;
- access restrictions; and
- removal of content.
Therefore, Section 14 should not be described as an automatic account-transfer mechanism. A person’s social-media profile may contain personal data, but the account itself may also be governed by a contractual relationship with the platform.
MEDICAL AND HEALTH DATA AFTER DEATH
Medical information requires particular caution. Hospitals, doctors, diagnostic laboratories, telemedicine providers and health platforms may retain information concerning diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions and medical history. However, it would be incorrect to say that Section 14 automatically gives a nominee the power to delete all medical records.
Data may have to be retained because of:
- statutory requirements;
- regulatory requirements;
- professional obligations;
- contractual requirements;
- ongoing litigation; or
- other applicable legal purposes.
Therefore, even where an applicable data-protection right exists, its exercise may be restricted by lawful retention obligations.
The correct position is that medical information must be analyzed under the DPDP framework as well as the other laws and obligations applicable to the particular record and service provider.
DOES THE DPDP ACT COVER EVERY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT?
No. This is another important limitation. The DPDP Act should not be presented as a universal law governing every piece of information that exists online.
Its application depends on the statutory definition of digital personal data, the circumstances in which the data is processed and the scope and exclusions contained in the Act.
Therefore, the existence of something online does not automatically mean that it is governed by Section 14. Similarly, not every digital asset is “personal data” merely because it is stored digitally.
A cryptocurrency holding, for example, raises questions of ownership, succession, access credentials and financial regulation that cannot be answered merely by referring to Section 14.
The same is true of a domain name, online business, intellectual-property right or monetized digital platform.
CAN A NOMINEE AUTHORISE NEW COMMERCIAL USES OF THE DECEASED PERSON’S DATA?
Unsettled Issue.
This is an area where caution is particularly important.
Section 14 allows a nominee to exercise the rights of the Data Principal under the Act and Rules. However, the provision does not expressly state that a nominee receives a general and unlimited power to enter into new commercial arrangements concerning the deceased person’s personal data.
It would therefore be unsafe to conclude that a nominee can automatically:
- sell the deceased person’s personal data;
- monetize the deceased person’s personal information;
- authorize unrelated commercial uses; or
- create entirely new commercial arrangements simply because they are a Section 14 nominee.
Any proposed processing or commercial use must be examined in light of the DPDP Act, applicable law, contractual arrangements and the particular circumstances.
This is an area where future judicial interpretation and regulatory practice may become important.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS NO NOMINEE?
Section 14 expressly creates a nomination mechanism, but the existence or absence of a nomination does not mean that every succession question is automatically resolved. A legal heir does not become a Section 14 nominee merely because they are a legal heir.
Similarly, the absence of a nominee does not mean that all digital assets become inaccessible or that succession rights disappear.
Instead, different legal questions may have to be addressed under the applicable succession law, contract, platform terms, property law, financial regulations and other relevant legal frameworks.
Therefore, nomination under Section 14 and nomination under succession or financial laws should not automatically be treated as the same legal concept.
SECTION 14 NOMINATION VS. A WILL
A Section 14 nomination and a Will serve different purposes.
A Will is generally concerned with the disposition of property and other testamentary matters according to the applicable succession law.
A Section 14 nomination, on the other hand, concerns the exercise of rights under the DPDP framework after death or incapacity.
A person may therefore need to consider both. For example, an individual may nominate someone under Section 14 to exercise applicable data-protection rights while separately using a legally valid Will or other succession arrangement to address property and financial assets.
This distinction is especially important for people with significant digital estates.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES
Example 1: Cloud photographs
A person dies leaving thousands of photographs stored in cloud storage. The photographs may contain the deceased person’s personal data, but the cloud account is also governed by the service provider’s contractual terms. A Section 14 nominee should not automatically be treated as having unrestricted ownership or access to the entire account.
Example 2: Cryptocurrency
A deceased person holds cryptocurrency in a wallet. Section 14 does not itself transfer ownership of the cryptocurrency to the nominee.The question of ownership and succession must be determined separately from the exercise of data-protection rights.
Example 3: Medical records
A hospital retains the deceased person’s medical records because of a legal or regulatory retention obligation. A nominee cannot automatically demand deletion merely by relying on Section 14.The applicable retention requirement must first be considered.
Example 4: Social-media profile
A deceased person has an active social-media account.
The nominee may have a statutory role concerning applicable Data Principal rights once Section 14 becomes operational, but this does not automatically give the nominee the password or ownership of the account. The platform’s policies and applicable law may govern access and memorialization.
WHY THE DISTINCTION MATTERS
The legal significance of Section 14 lies precisely in what it does not do.
- It does not convert privacy into property.
- It does not create automatic digital inheritance.
- It does not make a nominee the owner of personal data.
- It does not guarantee access to passwords.
- It does not transfer cryptocurrency.
- It does not automatically transfer social-media accounts.
- It does not override third-party privacy.
- It does not eliminate contractual terms.
- It does not override statutory retention requirements.
Instead, it establishes a statutory mechanism through which the Data Principal’s rights may be exercised after death or incapacity, subject to the wider legal framework.
POSTHUMOUS DATA PRIVACY AND DIGITAL ESTATE PLANNING
The concept of digital estate planning is therefore broader than Section 14.
A person planning their digital estate should consider different categories separately:
- Personal data – information held by Data Fiduciaries and other service providers.
- Online accounts – email, social-media and cloud accounts.
- Financial assets – bank accounts, investments and digital wallets.
- Virtual digital assets – cryptocurrency and related holdings.
- Intellectual property – copyright, trademarks and other legally protected interests.
- Online businesses – websites, stores and revenue-generating platforms.
- Contractual rights – rights arising from agreements with digital service providers.
- Succession arrangements – Wills and other legally recognized estate-planning mechanisms.
Section 14 addresses only one part of this larger picture. This is why it would be misleading to call Section 14 a complete “digital inheritance law”.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The legal position can be summarized in five points:
First, “posthumous data privacy” is a useful analytical expression, but it should not be presented as an independent constitutional right created by the DPDP Act.
Second, Section 14 of the DPDP Act creates a statutory right to nominate another individual to exercise Data Principal rights after death or incapacity.
Third, Section 14 of the DPDP Act is not yet in force as of 7 September 2026 and is scheduled to commence on 13 May 2027. Rule 13 of the DPDP Rules contains the procedural framework relevant to the exercise of the right to nominate.
Fourth, a Section 14 nominee does not automatically inherit digital assets, own online accounts, receive passwords or acquire the deceased person’s property.
Fifth, data protection, privacy, account access, property, contractual rights and succession are separate legal questions and must be analysed accordingly.
CONCLUSION
The debate surrounding posthumous data privacy in India should not be reduced to the question of whether privacy simply “survives” death. The more precise question is what happens to personal data and the statutory rights associated with it after the Data Principal dies. Section 14 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides an important answer by creating a nomination mechanism through which another individual may exercise the Data Principal’s rights after death or incapacity. But the provision should not be misunderstood as creating an inheritable constitutional right to privacy or as establishing a comprehensive law of digital inheritance.
The current position also requires an important temporal qualification. As of September 2026, Section 14 is not yet operational and is scheduled to commence on 13 May 2027. Rule 13 of the DPDP Rules contains the procedural framework relevant to the exercise of the right to nominate, subject to the applicable commencement framework. Once the framework becomes operational, its practical application will depend not only on the statutory text but also on the Rules, Data Fiduciary procedures, contractual arrangements, statutory retention obligations and future judicial interpretation. For that reason, the strongest way to understand Section 14 is through a simple distinction: Data-protection rights are not the same as privacy rights; privacy rights are not the same as succession rights; and succession rights are not the same as ownership or account-access rights. Section 14 sits within that distinction. Its importance lies not in turning a person’s digital life into inheritable property, but in creating a statutory route for exercising specified Data Principal rights after death or incapacity. Current as of 7 September 2026. The commencement position and applicable rules should be re-verified before relying on this article after 13 May 2027.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
- Is Section 14 of the DPDP Act currently in force?
No. As of 7 September 2026, Section 14 has been enacted but is not yet in force. Under the 13 November 2025 commencement notification, it is scheduled to come into force on 13 May 2027.
- What is Section 14 of the DPDP Act?
Section 14 is titled “Right to nominate.” It allows a Data Principal to nominate another individual who may exercise the Data Principal’s rights under the DPDP Act and Rules in the event of death or incapacity.
- Does Section 14 create a constitutional right to posthumous privacy?
No. Section 14 does not expressly create an independent constitutional right to posthumous privacy. It creates a statutory mechanism for exercising Data Principal rights after death or incapacity.
- Does a legal heir automatically become a Section 14 nominee?
No. Legal heirship and Section 14 nomination are distinct concepts. A person does not become a Section 14 nominee merely because they are a legal heir.
- Can a Section 14 nominee inherit cryptocurrency?
Not by virtue of Section 14 alone. Section 14 concerns data-protection rights, whereas ownership and succession of cryptocurrency involve separate legal questions.
- Can a nominee take over the deceased person’s social-media account?
Not automatically. Section 14 does not itself provide an unrestricted right to passwords or account takeover. Platform terms, security procedures, contractual arrangements and applicable law may govern account access.
- Can a nominee demand deletion of all personal data?
No. Any applicable erasure right remains subject to the DPDP Act and its exceptions. Data may need to be retained where required by law or for other legally recognized purposes.
- Can a nominee access the deceased person’s private emails and messages?
Not automatically. Section 14 should not be treated as an unrestricted password or account-access provision. The rights of other individuals whose information appears in those communications may also have to be considered.
- Does Section 14 apply to every digital account?
No. The DPDP Act has a defined statutory scope and exclusions. In addition, account access and ownership may be governed by contracts and platform-specific rules.
- Does Section 14 transfer ownership of digital assets?
No. Section 14 does not itself transfer ownership of bank accounts, cryptocurrency, domain names, intellectual property, websites or other digital assets.
- Is a Section 14 nomination the same as a Will?
No. A Section 14 nomination concerns the exercise of Data Principal rights under the DPDP framework. A Will deals with testamentary succession and the disposition of property and other interests according to applicable law.
- What happens if a person dies without making a Section 14 nomination?
Section 14 does not make succession law irrelevant. Questions concerning property, accounts, contractual rights and other assets must be addressed under the laws and arrangements applicable to those interests. The absence of a Section 14 nominee should not be treated as automatically transferring rights to a particular legal heir.
- Can a nominee authorize new commercial uses of deceased person’s data?
Section 14 does not expressly grant a general and unlimited power to enter into new commercial arrangements concerning the deceased person’s personal data. Such processing would need to be assessed under the DPDP Act, applicable law, contractual arrangements and the circumstances of the proposed processing.
- When will Section 14 become operational?
The scheduled commencement date is 13 May 2027, based on the 18-month commencement period beginning with the notification dated 13 November 2025, subject to any subsequent legal or governmental change.
- Why is Section 14 important if it does not create digital inheritance?
Section 14 is significant because it creates a statutory mechanism for continuing the exercise of Data Principal rights after death or incapacity. It fills an important part of the legal gap between a person’s death and the continued existence and processing of their personal data, while leaving property and succession questions to other applicable legal frameworks.
REFERENCES
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India.
- Notification No. G.S.R. 843(E), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, 13 November 2025.
- Notification No. G.S.R. 846(E), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, 13 November 2025.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2642.
- Ruba Ahmed & Anr. v. Hansal Mehta & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3596.
- Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., CS(COMM) 187/2021, decided 11 July 2023 (Delhi High Court).
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, Explanatory Note to the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, Enforcement Timeline for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
