The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by the Digital News Publishers Association challenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, arguing that they violate free speech and hinder journalistic functioning.
While issuing the notice, the bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana highlighted the need to balance public officials’ right to privacy and news media’s work. “You are the domain experts. You are the best person to suggest to the Union and us how you will ensure there is no misuse,” CJI Surya Kant said.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan submitted that the petition was perhaps the first comprehensive petition filed by “legacy media.” She argued that constantly seeking permission and consent from public officials before publishing amounts to “pre-censorship.”
“This will change the whole concept of news. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal on whether he or she will give consent, the concept of news will be gone. The news has to be new. It will close down the newsroom. What’s the point if I have to ask permission and consent?” Diwan said.
The counsel further submitted that the Act was not meant for journalists in the first place and earlier drafts provided them an exemption.
“This Act, when your Lordships will see it, was not meant for journalism at all. The earlier avatars excluded us, we don’t know why this has happened. It was not meant for us. Newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. This will set in a regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask someone’s permission to report on them! How can that be? What will be news then? We will face the consequences if there is something wrong, but it cannot be frozen before it is published. We are regulated in any case,” Divan submitted.
The counsel also informed the bench that the petitioner submitted the representation to the Centre, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. She also submitted that the petitioner had met the ministry officials on August 25.
The matter will next be heard on November 17.
What does the petition demand?
The petition has been filed by the Digital News Publishers Association. DNPA is an industry body of India’s legacy news media organisations which also run digital media operations. Currently, it has 21 members, including The Hindu, The Indian Express, Times Group, Hindustan Times, India Today, Zee, NDTV, Network 18, Dainik Bhaskar and ABP, among others. Yukta Mudgal, an independent investigative journalist based in New Delhi, is also a petitioner.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the plea seeks a declaration of Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, as unconstitutional. It also challenges Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025. The above sections require journalists to seek prior consent, notice or erasure of personal data, which interferes with the media’s everyday functioning.
The petition argues that the above restrictions violate the right to freedom of speech and expression. It argues that consent from public officials defeats the purpose of investigative journalism, as it involves uncovering personal information of public officials in matters of corruption and misconduct in public office to ensure public good.
The law would “render investigative journalism a benign and neutered recorder of events,” the 698-page plea reads. The provisions “constitute pre-censorship which is anathema to any democracy worth its name.”
The plea also makes a case for exempting journalism from such requirements, highlighting that the initial drafts of the act included exceptions for journalistic purposes. The initial drafts were the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 and the Data Protection Bill, 2021. However, the draft Digital Data Protection Bill, 2022 and the notified act did not retain the exceptions.
The plea also raises concerns about overarching powers granted to the Centre. It argues that the powers can be misused to restrict the dissemination of news. They can also be abused to identify and target a journalist’s confidential sources. It would discourage whistleblowers and other sources from sharing information on public interest-related issues. The plea also highlighted the absence of institutional safeguards for news media organisations.
Significantly enough, the plea also challenges Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which led to the insertion of Section 8(1)(j) in the Right to Information Act, 2005. Earlier, journalists could disclose a person’s personal information if it related to the public interest. However, Section 8(1)(j) restricts access to information concerning public officials in practice.
Significantly enough, the Supreme Court on February 16 this year referred the petitions challenging the DPDP Act amendment to the RTI Act to a 3-judge bench for perusal.
