Section 39: Bar of Jurisdiction
Section 39 keeps civil courts out of matters the Board is specifically empowered to handle under the Act, and stops courts from granting injunctions over action taken or to be taken under the Act.
Quick summary
What Section 39 says
- Section 39 — no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter for which the Board is empowered under the Act's provisions, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under the Act.
Breaking it down
This is a jurisdiction-channelling provision, common in Indian regulatory statutes, that routes specific categories of disputes exclusively to the specialised body created to handle them — here, the Data Protection Board and, on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal — rather than allowing them to also be litigated in the ordinary civil court system.
Two distinct restrictions, working together. First, civil courts can't even entertain a suit or proceeding over a matter the Board is empowered to determine — the case simply doesn't belong there. Second, separately, no court or authority (not just civil courts) can grant an injunction over Board-related action, which prevents an interim court order from being used to pause or block the Board's exercise of its statutory powers while a case works through some other forum.
The bar is scoped to matters within the Board's own empowered jurisdiction. This isn't a blanket removal of civil court jurisdiction over anything data-related — it specifically covers matters the Act empowers the Board to determine. A dispute genuinely outside the Board's statutory remit wouldn't be barred by this section.
This channels disputes toward the Act's own appeal structure instead. Since civil courts are barred, the correct route to challenge a Board decision is the appeal mechanism to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 29, not a separate civil suit.
Why this section matters
Without a jurisdiction bar like this, a party unhappy with a Board decision could potentially try to relitigate the same matter in a civil court, or seek an injunction to block Board action while doing so — undermining the specialised enforcement structure the Act creates. Section 39 keeps disputes within the Board/Tribunal system the Act specifically established for them.
Real-world example
Why the appeal route, not a civil suit, is the correct path
A company disagrees with a penalty the Board has imposed on it following an inquiry.
- What the company can't do — file a civil suit in an ordinary court challenging the penalty, or seek a civil court injunction to block the Board's order from taking effect — Section 39 specifically bars both routes for a matter within the Board's empowered jurisdiction.
- What the company can do instead — appeal the Board's order to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 29, within the 60-day window — the process the Act specifically provides for challenging a Board decision.
Who needs to care about this section
- Legal teams considering how to challenge a Board decision — Section 39 makes clear the Section 29 appeal route, not a separate civil suit, is the correct path.
- Anyone tempted to seek a court injunction against pending Board action — this section specifically forecloses that option.
Common questions
Can we sue in a regular civil court instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal?
Can we get a court to pause a Board inquiry while we pursue other legal options?
Related sections
Section 40 — Power to Make Rules
Continue to the next section in sequence.
Read Section 40Section 38 — Consistency with Other Laws
Go back to the previous section.
Read Section 38Chapter IX — Miscellaneous
See every section in this chapter together.
View the chapterFull DPDP Act Guide
Back to the overview page, with the complete section-by-section guide.
View all 44 sections