The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has told the Supreme Court that newsrooms could shut down if journalists are required to seek permission from individuals before publishing information about them under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
Appearing for the association on Tuesday, senior advocate Madhavi Divan argued that the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activities could fundamentally alter news gathering and reporting, amounting to pre-censorship of the press.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Union ministries of Law and Justice and Electronics and Information Technology. However, it declined to grant an interim stay on the law without hearing the government.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17, along with other pending cases.
DNPA Warns of Impact on Investigative Journalism
The DNPA, which represents 21 digital news publishers, has challenged several provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023, and its accompanying rules, arguing that they violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Divan told the court that the lack of a journalistic exemption could make it difficult for reporters to investigate matters involving personal information, including alleged corruption, misconduct and irregularities in public affairs.
“We have raised the argument concerning exemptions as well. Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission,” she said.
Calling the framework a “complete regime of pre-censorship”, Divan questioned how journalists could report on individuals if they first had to obtain their permission.
“If we report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences,” she argued.
Divan also said earlier versions of data protection legislation had excluded journalism and questioned why that exemption had not been retained in the current law.
The petition argues that obligations relating to notice, consent, withdrawal of consent and erasure of personal data could interfere with investigative reporting and compromise the confidentiality of journalistic sources.
Challenge to Amendment of RTI Act
A central part of the DNPA’s challenge concerns Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The provision concerns the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.
The association argues that the amendment removes the earlier public interest safeguard for disclosing personal information, potentially restricting access to records relevant to public accountability.
The petition seeks to have the amendment declared unconstitutional, contending that it could weaken the public’s right to information and hinder reporting on matters of public interest.
The DNPA has also challenged Sections 36 and 37 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules.
According to the petition, Section 36 empowers the Centre to seek information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without adequate safeguards concerning necessity, proportionality, judicial oversight and notice to affected parties.
The association has argued that the provisions violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, which protect equality, freedom of speech and expression, the right to practise a profession, and the right to life and personal liberty.
The plea also relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right, while arguing that data protection must be balanced against press freedom and the public’s right to know.
Supreme Court Declines Interim Stay
The bench declined to suspend the law at this stage, saying the government must first be heard.
“No stay without hearing the other side. But notice on stay application issued,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said.
The notices seek responses from the concerned Union ministries to the challenges raised by the publishers.
The DNPA includes digital news organisations such as Network18, NDTV, The Indian Express, Times Internet, The Hindu, India Today, Zee Media, ABP, Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi and Amar Ujala, among others.
The case raises questions about how India’s data protection framework will apply to journalism, particularly investigations that rely on personal information collected without the subject’s consent.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter again on November 17. No interim stay has been granted, and the constitutional challenge remains pending.
