BACK TO DPDP ACT
DPDP Act 2023

Section 29

Appeal

THE STATUTE

Original Text

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Board may prefer an appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. (2) An appeal made under this section shall be heard expeditiously by the High Court and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of filing of the appeal.

Simplified

Section 29 established the High Court as the appellate forum in the bare Act text — but Rule 22 of the DPDP Rules, 2025 (in force 13 November 2025) operationalises appeals to the Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT — the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, designated under the Act). This is a significant change from what the bare Act text of Section 29 appeared to provide. Earlier bill drafts proposed a dedicated data protection appellate tribunal; the bare Act went to the High Court; the Rules have now landed on TDSAT as the practical appellate forum. The implications are profound. Going to a High Court directly — rather than a specialised data protection tribunal — means: appeals will be handled by judges with general jurisdiction, not data protection specialists; the High Court's writ jurisdiction already exists as a parallel route, so a separate tribunal would have been partly redundant; cases will benefit from High Court precedent having immediate binding authority across the state; and the costs and formality of High Court proceedings may deter some meritorious appeals (especially from individual Data Principals challenging large penalties). The 60-day appeal window from the Board's order is standard — comparable to appeal periods before other regulatory tribunal appellate forums. The proviso allows condonation of delay for sufficient cause. Section 29(2)'s six-month disposal target for High Courts is a hopeful directive — High Courts are notoriously backlogged, and a six-month target for DPDP appeals will likely be honoured in the breach for most cases. The 'expeditious hearing' language, however, provides a basis for parties to seek priority listing.

Common Queries

To the Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) per Rule 22 of the DPDP Rules 2025, in force 13 November 2025. Despite Section 29 of the bare Act referring to the High Court, Rule 22 has operationalised appeals to TDSAT — filed digitally, with filing fees matching TRAI Act fees, payable by UPI.
Section 29 does not expressly provide for stays, but the High Court's inherent powers under Article 226 allow it to grant a stay of a Board order pending appeal where a prima facie case and balance of convenience favour it.
The High Court may condone the delay if you show 'sufficient cause' for missing the deadline. This is a discretionary power — the court will consider whether the delay was reasonable and whether condoning it causes prejudice.
Yes. Any person aggrieved by a Board order may appeal — this includes Data Principals who are dissatisfied with the Board's decision on their complaint (e.g., if the Board rejected their complaint or imposed what they consider an inadequate penalty).

Legal Context

The decision to route appeals directly to the High Court was a departure from the original Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 model, which proposed an Appellate Tribunal. The change was likely influenced by the already-overburdened tribunal system and a desire to leverage existing High Court infrastructure. SEBI, by contrast, uses the Securities Appellate Tribunal as a specialised intermediate appellate forum.

Key Rules & Provisions

High Court as appellate forum — no intermediate specialised data protection tribunal.

60-day appeal window — consistent with other regulatory appellate timeframes.

Six-month disposal target — aspirational given High Court backlogs, but provides basis for priority listing.

Condonation of delay available for sufficient cause.

Rule 22 (DPDP Rules 2025, in force 13 Nov 2025): CONFIRMED appellate forum is TDSAT — not High Court as bare Act text implied.

Rule 22: appeals filed digitally; fee same as TRAI Act; payment via UPI or RBI-approved digital means.

Rule 22: TDSAT follows principles of natural justice, not CPC; digital office proceedings.

Related Case Laws

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal v. Tata Communications Ltd. (2019)

(2019) 7 SCC 321
RELEVANCE

The Supreme Court upheld TDSAT's jurisdiction as an appellate forum for regulatory disputes and its power to grant interim relief pending appeal. Rule 22 of the DPDP Rules 2025 designates TDSAT as the appellate forum for DPBI orders — this precedent supports the validity of that designation and TDSAT's powers in DPDP appeals.