Open to investigation: On the challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

The Digital News Publishers Association’s (DNPA) challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and its Rules, has drawn attention to concerns that a law to safeguard informational privacy risks creating a serious chilling effect on the media. The absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activity could subject reporters investigating official misconduct or corruption to the obligations of a “data fiduciary”, requiring them to notify and seek consent from the very individuals they are investigating. Such onerous requirements could affect investigations undertaken in the public interest. The implications extend to routine newsgathering too, where personal information is integral to reporting. The omission is particularly consequential because the drafts in 2018, 2019 and 2021 carried a journalistic exemption. The Act already provides exemptions for certain forms of data processing, including for research and statistical purposes, making the denial of similar protection to journalists difficult to justify. Non-compliance can attract penalties of up to ₹250 crore, posing an existential threat to smaller and independent newsrooms. The DNPA petition also challenges Section 44(3), which amended the RTI Act, 2005, removing the earlier public-interest qualification concerning disclosure of personal information. The protection of personal information must not be absolute; an overriding public interest must remain a legitimate ground for disclosure, particularly when the information is held by public authorities. Investigations into corruption often rely on asset disclosures and tender documents containing personal data. Restricting access to these records risks reducing journalism to merely reproducing government releases.

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice on the petition, rightly emphasised the need to balance press freedom with the right to privacy. Although journalists in India enjoy no specific statutory protection for their work, freedom of the press is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a). The Court has also shielded newspapers from arbitrary state restrictions. However, growing mistrust of legacy media and the rise of independent content creators have made it difficult to determine who receives such protection. The Centre has also flagged this concern. Yet, carving out distinct categories is no easy task — a 2026 Reuters Institute report shows that the proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds identifying social media as their primary source of news rose from 21% in 2015 to 39% in 2025. A purely legalistic determination of these competing concerns may perhaps prove too onerous. Stakeholders must build consensus on a mutually acceptable framework where public functionaries and those handling public funds are not insulated from scrutiny under the guise of privacy. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw’s indication that he would meet editors is a welcome step towards consensus.