The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. (Img: Pinterest)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a major legal challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, with digital news publishers arguing that the legislation and its accompanying rules could undermine press freedom, investigative journalism and the public’s right to know. The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) urged the Court to strike down several provisions it considers unconstitutional, contending that the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activities could fundamentally alter how news is gathered, verified and published.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice on the petition and the application seeking an interim stay. However, the court declined to suspend the challenged provisions without first hearing the government’s position. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17.
The case brings two important constitutional interests into focus: the protection of individuals’ personal data and the freedom of the press to investigate matters of public importance. The court has indicated that both sides must be heard before any interim relief is considered.
The petition has been filed by the DNPA under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows individuals and organisations to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The association represents the digital news operations of 21 major media organisations, including The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, Times Internet, Network18, NDTV, Zee Media, ABP, Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Amar Ujala and Eenadu Television.
The petition also includes independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal as a petitioner. The challenge targets Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, along with Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.
The central objection is that the legal framework does not provide a specific exemption for bona fide journalistic activities undertaken in the public interest. According to the petitioners, publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents could face obligations involving notice, consent and the erasure of personal data even when reporting on matters of public concern.
Such requirements, they argue, could complicate routine news gathering and create legal uncertainty for investigative reporting involving public officials, businesses, alleged misconduct, corruption and governance. The association contends that requiring journalists to obtain permission from the individuals they are investigating could frustrate reporting and discourage the publication of information that serves the public interest.
The petitioners have therefore urged the court to examine whether the challenged provisions impose an unreasonable burden on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.
DNPA Warns of Chilling Effect on Investigative Journalism
Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, argued before the Bench that the absence of a journalistic exemption could have serious consequences for newsroom operations. She submitted that news organisations should not have to depend on an individual’s consent before reporting information about that person when the subject has a legitimate bearing on public affairs.
Divan argued that news reporting often involves the disclosure of information that is not voluntarily supplied by the person concerned. Investigative journalism may require reporters to examine public records, verify documents, investigate allegations and expose wrongdoing. In such circumstances, the petitioners contend, a consent-based framework could create obstacles before information reaches the public.
The association has also argued that the prospect of penalties and compliance proceedings could produce a chilling effect on editorial independence. Newsrooms might become more cautious about pursuing sensitive investigations, particularly where personal information is relevant to alleged wrongdoing or the conduct of public officials.
The petitioners maintain that the law should distinguish between unlawful misuse of personal data and legitimate journalism conducted in the public interest. They argue that protecting privacy is important but should not automatically prevent the publication of information that is necessary for public accountability.
The Bench did not grant an immediate stay. Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that the petitioners, as domain experts, could help the court and the government identify safeguards against misuse. He also emphasised the need to strike a balance between the rights of media organisations and those of ordinary citizens.
Why Confidential Journalistic Sources Are a Major Concern
A significant part of the challenge concerns Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the 2025 Rules. The petitioners argue that these provisions give the Central Government broad powers to seek information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without sufficient safeguards.
According to the plea, the framework does not adequately ensure judicial oversight, a clearly defined necessity and proportionality test, or prior notice to the affected individual in the circumstances challenged by the petitioners.
The association has raised concerns that such powers could potentially expose confidential journalistic sources. Whistleblowers and other individuals who provide information about alleged wrongdoing may be reluctant to approach journalists if they fear that their identities or communications could subsequently be disclosed.
Source confidentiality is particularly important in investigative reporting, where information about corruption, corporate misconduct or administrative irregularities may depend on people willing to share material discreetly. The petitioners contend that insufficient safeguards could discourage such disclosures and weaken the media’s ability to scrutinise powerful institutions.
The plea also challenges Section 37(1), which empowers the Central Government to restrict public access to information in specified circumstances. The petitioners argue that the provision is too broad and could potentially be used in ways that restrict the dissemination of news.
These are allegations raised in the legal challenge and remain subject to the government’s response and the court’s examination.
Data Protection Board Under Legal Scrutiny
The DNPA has also challenged provisions governing the Data Protection Board of India, particularly Sections 18, 19 and 27 of the Act. The petitioners have questioned the board’s institutional structure and the safeguards surrounding its adjudicatory functions.
The board is responsible for examining specified data-protection violations and exercising powers under the statutory framework, including proceedings that may lead to financial penalties. The petitioners contend that the executive-led appointment process and the absence of a mandatory judicial member raise concerns about institutional independence and the adjudication of disputes involving fundamental rights.
They argue that an authority exercising such powers should have adequate structural and procedural safeguards to ensure fairness, impartiality and accountability.
The court will have to consider these objections alongside the wider challenge to the law. The proceedings could bring greater scrutiny to the relationship between executive authority, regulatory enforcement and the protection of constitutional rights in the digital news ecosystem.
Earlier Data Protection Bills Had Journalism Exemptions
The petitioners have also drawn attention to earlier versions of India’s data-protection legislation. They contend that the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, included a journalistic exemption under Section 47, while subsequent versions, including the 2019 and 2021 bills, also contained provisions addressing journalistic activities.
According to the plea, the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, did not retain a specific exemption for journalism and instead contemplated exemptions to be notified by the Central Government.
The association argues that the omission of an express exemption in the enacted framework leaves journalists and publishers vulnerable to restrictions that could interfere with reporting in the public interest. It has also questioned the distinction between journalism and other activities, such as research, archiving and statistical processing, that receive exemptions under certain circumstances.
The petitioners contend that journalism serving the public interest should receive appropriate safeguards, particularly when reporting involves information necessary to scrutinise public institutions or expose wrongdoing.
The government’s response and the court’s eventual interpretation will be central to determining how these competing considerations are addressed under the existing legal framework.
DPDP Act Challenge Also Targets Amendment to RTI Law
Another major component of the case concerns Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This provision deals with the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.
The petitioners argue that the amendment creates an overly broad restriction on access to personal information, including in circumstances where disclosure could serve a larger public interest. They contend that the earlier RTI framework allowed a more contextual assessment of whether personal information had a connection to public activity or interest and whether disclosure was justified under the applicable legal exceptions.
According to the plea, the revised framework could make it more difficult for journalists and citizens to obtain information about public officials, public administration and matters requiring accountability.
The petitioners have referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the electoral bonds case, Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, in support of their argument that the public’s right to know is an important constitutional consideration.
The challenge to the RTI amendment is also part of a wider set of pending legal proceedings concerning the relationship between personal privacy and access to public information. In February, the Supreme Court referred petitions challenging the amendment to a three-judge Bench.
DNPA Had Raised Concerns With the Government
The association has stated that it approached the government with its concerns about the implementation of the DPDP Act and Rules. According to the petition, the DNPA submitted a detailed representation to the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and Information Technology on August 10, 2026. A meeting between DNPA representatives and ministry officials followed on August 25.
The petitioners have maintained that their concerns extend beyond individual compliance requirements to the broader functioning of the digital news industry. They argue that the legal framework must account for the practical realities of journalism, including the verification of sensitive information, the protection of confidential sources and the need to publish time-sensitive reports.
The Supreme Court has now sought the government’s response but has not suspended the challenged provisions. The next hearing, scheduled for November 17, will be an important stage in the proceedings as the parties place their legal arguments before the Bench.
The case could have significant implications for the future of digital journalism in India, particularly for investigative reporting and the balance between privacy rights, government powers and the public’s right to information. However, the immediate legal position remains unchanged, with the challenged provisions still in force pending further orders from the court.
