GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27, sought the Centre’s response to a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Gives Petitioners 10 Days to Counter ECI’s Claims on Unanimous SIR Decisions
The DNPA, which represents 21 prominent news organisations, has argued that the law does not provide an exemption for journalism and could hamper news gathering, investigative reporting and the public’s right to information.
The DPDP Act, passed by Parliament in August 2023, establishes a framework for protecting digital personal data. It requires entities processing such data, known as Data Fiduciaries, to obtain an individual’s consent or rely on specified legitimate uses permitted under the law.
The accompanying rules were notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on November 13, 2025, with implementation scheduled in phases over 18 months. Violations of the Act can attract penalties of up to ₹250 crore.
How the law could affect journalism
One of the key concerns raised by the DNPA is the requirement to notify individuals and obtain consent before processing their personal data. The association argues that applying this requirement to journalists could alert the subjects of investigations before publication.
According to the DNPA, such notification could allow individuals to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise obstruct an investigation.
The association has also raised concerns over provisions that allow individuals to withdraw consent. Under the law, entities holding their personal data must stop processing it and erase it within a reasonable time, unless retention is required under another law.
The DNPA has argued that people featured in investigative reports could use this provision to pressure publishers into removing or substantially redacting factual reports concerning matters of public interest. It has warned that this could affect the historical public record.
Concerns over government access to information
The publishers have also questioned provisions that allow the government to require organisations processing personal data to furnish information.
Under certain circumstances, an organisation can be barred from informing the individual concerned about such a request if disclosure is considered harmful to national security.
In its petition, the DNPA has argued that these provisions grant broad powers without requiring court approval and could be used to identify or target journalistic sources. It has also expressed concern that the provisions could extend to confidential communications held by reporters or informants.
High penalties raise concerns for smaller publishers
The Act empowers the Data Protection Board to impose financial penalties of up to ₹250 crore for certain violations.
The DNPA has argued that penalties of this scale could pose an existential threat to regional, independent and digital-first news organisations that operate on limited budgets.
The association has also pointed out that earlier versions of the proposed data protection law, introduced in 2018, 2019 and 2021, contained an exemption for journalism, which is absent from the current legislation.
The challenge centres on whether the data protection framework, in its present form, adequately accounts for the requirements of journalism and the public interest in reporting.
The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to the petition.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard submissions from the DNPA, which represents 21 prominent news organisations.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the association, urged the Court to consider its plea for an interim stay, arguing that the absence of an exemption for journalism could fundamentally change how news is gathered and reported.
Divan argued that requiring journalists to seek permission before reporting on individuals could amount to pre-censorship and have serious consequences for press freedom.
“We have raised the argument concerning exemptions as well. Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. It is a complete regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask your permission if we report on you. How can that ever be? What is news otherwise? If we report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences,” she told the Court.
She also pointed out that earlier versions of the legislation had excluded journalism and questioned why the exemption was not retained in the final law.
“When the Court examines this Act in detail, it will find that it was not meant for journalism at all. In fact, the earlier versions excluded journalism. We do not know why this has happened. Clearly, it was not meant for us,” Divan said.
The petition contends that the law’s cumulative effect would impose a chilling effect on editorial independence and investigative journalism, placing what it describes as an impermissible burden on the freedom of speech and expression.
