DNPA moves SC against data protection law, warns of threat to press freedom

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), representing 21 prominent news organisations, has moved the Supreme Court of India challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the rules notified in 2025, arguing that the framework could undermine investigative journalism, compromise confidential sources and restrict the public’s right to information.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27, sought a response from the Centre on the petition, which contends that the legislation fails to provide explicit safeguards for journalistic activities, despite the government’s assurances that press freedom would be protected.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice after hearing senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the association, and listed the matter for further hearing on November 17, alongside other pending challenges.

Among the publishers represented by the DNPA are The Hindu, The Times of India, The Indian Express, Mathrubhumi, Manorama, India Today, NDTV and Network18, while other media organisations, including the Reporters’ Collective and Digipub, have separately challenged the legislation.

At the heart of the dispute is the absence of a specific exemption for journalism, which the DNPA says could compel reporters to seek consent from individuals before processing their personal information, thereby alerting those under investigation and allowing them to destroy evidence, influence witnesses or obstruct the publication of reports exposing wrongdoing.

The association has also questioned provisions that allow individuals to withdraw consent and demand the erasure of their personal data, warning that, without safeguards for reporting in the public interest, publishers could face pressure to remove or substantially alter factual news reports.

Such provisions, the petition argues, could have consequences extending well beyond individual publications, as potential whistle-blowers might hesitate to share evidence of corruption, corporate misconduct or electoral malpractice if they fear that their identities and communications could be exposed.

The DNPA has challenged Section 36 of the Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the rules, which empower the Union government to seek information from organisations handling personal data.

It argues that these powers lack sufficiently clear limits and adequate safeguards, including judicial oversight and tests of necessity and proportionality, thereby creating the possibility of access to confidential journalistic sources.

The association has also contested the government’s authority to restrict access to information in the public interest, alongside an amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005, introduced through Section 44(3) of the data protection law, which it says could impede disclosure of information relating to public offices.

The petition maintains that the framework fails to distinguish journalism from other forms of data processing and risks placing privacy protections in conflict with freedom of speech and the public’s right to know. It also cites safeguards for journalistic activity under data protection frameworks in the European Union, Singapore and the United Kingdom.

Most of the disputed provisions are scheduled to take effect in May 2027, and the publishers have asked the court to strike them down before implementation.