BACK TO DPDP ACT
DPDP Act 2023

Section 39

Rules to be Laid before Parliament

THE STATUTE

Original Text

Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

Simplified

Section 39 is the parliamentary oversight mechanism for DPDP Rules — the constitutional check on the executive's extensive rule-making delegation under Section 38. Every rule made by the Central Government must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a total of 30 days. During this period, Parliament can: make modifications to the rule (agreed by both Houses); or annul the rule entirely (agreed by both Houses that it should not be made). If no parliamentary action is taken within the 30-day period, the rule stands as notified. If modified or annulled, the modification or annulment applies going forward — it does not invalidate anything done under the rule before the modification or annulment. The 30-day laying period can be spread across sessions, ensuring Parliament has adequate time to scrutinise rules even if a session ends before the full period has elapsed. This parliamentary control mechanism is particularly important for the DPDP Act given the extensive rule-making delegation — the DPDP Rules will operationalise everything from breach notification timelines to Board composition to the conditions for Cross-Border data transfers. The ability to modify or annul Rules gives Parliament a meaningful role in the Act's operational implementation, not just its initial enactment. In practice, the Departmentally Related Standing Committees of Parliament scrutinise subordinate legislation — the Standing Committee on Communications and IT (or equivalent) would likely review DPDP Rules.

Common Queries

Yes, but only through the modification mechanism in Section 39 — both Houses must agree to the modification during the 30-day laying period. After this period lapses without action, the Rules stand and Parliament's window for that particular rule closes.
Section 39 expressly protects them — annulment is without prejudice to the validity of anything done under the rule before annulment. Past actions remain valid even if the rule enabling them is later annulled.
The Departmentally Related Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology would be the primary parliamentary body reviewing DPDP Rules laid before Parliament. The Committee can examine the Rules, call witnesses, and recommend modifications — though formal annulment requires agreement of both Houses.
Yes. Under Section 39, every rule made by the Central Government must be laid before each House for 30 days. The DPDP Rules 2025 (notified 13 November 2025) must be laid before Parliament in the next available session — Parliament can then modify or annul them within the 30-day period.

Legal Context

Parliamentary laying and modification powers for subordinate legislation are a feature of India's constitutional framework for delegated legislation. The General Clauses Act and various parliamentary rules govern the laying procedure. The 30-day laying requirement with modification/annulment power is the standard 'affirmative resolution' procedure used across major Indian economic statutes.

Key Rules & Provisions

30-day laying period — Parliament has adequate time across sessions.

Both Houses must agree for modification or annulment — requires bicameral consensus.

Previously done acts are not invalidated by subsequent modification or annulment.

Related Case Laws

Registrar, Cooperative Societies v. Kunjabmu (1980)

(1980) 1 SCC 340
RELEVANCE

The Supreme Court upheld parliamentary laying provisions as a constitutionally valid mechanism for legislative oversight of delegated legislation. Section 39's 30-day laying requirement gives Parliament meaningful oversight of the DPDP Rules — consistent with this established constitutional model for controlling subordinate legislation.