No Exemption For Journalism: Why News Publishers Are Challenging The DPDP Act

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents the digital news operations of 21 major media organisations, has moved the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.

The association argues that the law, intended to protect people's personal data, could make investigative journalism difficult, expose confidential sources and threaten the preservation of published reports.

The DNPA includes digital news operations of organisations such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, the Times Group, Zee, NDTV and Network18. Independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal is also a petitioner.

“This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media,” Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, told the court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Centre on the petition and the association's request for an interim stay on the challenged provisions.

What Does The DPDP Act Require?

The Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act in August 2023 to establish a legal framework for processing digital personal data. The government notified the accompanying Digital Personal Data Protection Rules in November 2025, with implementation scheduled in phases over 18 months.

The law regulates how organisations collect, use and process digital personal data. It also gives individuals certain rights over their information and places obligations on organisations that handle it.

Under the Act, an entity that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data is called a Data Fiduciary. The individual to whom that data relates is called a Data Principal.

Broadly, the law requires Data Fiduciaries to process personal data with the individual's consent or for specific legitimate uses permitted under Section 7.

Section 7(a), for instance, permits processing for a specified purpose for which an individual has voluntarily provided their personal data, provided they have not indicated that they do not consent to its use.

The law also gives individuals the right to withdraw consent and seek erasure of their personal data, subject to the applicable provisions and exceptions.

Organisations that violate the law can face substantial financial penalties, with some breaches attracting fines of up to Rs 250 crore.

These requirements are intended to give people greater control over their personal information. However, the law does not expressly exempt journalistic activities from its provisions.

Why Is The DNPA Challenging The Law?

The DNPA's central objection is that the DPDP Act does not provide an explicit exemption for journalism. According to its petition, the government had assured publishers at an August meeting that press freedom would be protected. However, the absence of a written exemption, similar to provisions in the European Union, Singapore and the United Kingdom, remains a concern.

One of the biggest issues is the requirement for consent. Unlike businesses that collect personal data when users sign up for a service, journalists often need to gather information about individuals without informing them, particularly when investigating corruption, corporate wrongdoing or irregularities in government schemes.

The DNPA argues that requiring journalists to seek consent from the subjects of their investigations could alert them before a story is published, allowing them to interfere with the reporting. This could “allow that subject to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses”, the petition states.

Without safeguards for journalism, the DNPA argues, this could create difficulties for publishers if individuals featured in previously published reports demand that their information be deleted.

Appearing for the association, Divan told the Supreme Court that making journalists dependent on the consent of those they report on would amount to “a complete regime of pre-censorship”.

“If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported?” she said.

The association has also questioned the government's powers to seek information from organisations handling personal data. Section 36 of the Act, scheduled to come into effect in May 2027, allows the Centre to require a Data Fiduciary or intermediary to furnish information it calls for.

The DNPA describes this power as “nakedly unguided”, arguing that it “can extend to privileged communications in possession of a reporter or the informant”. It warns that this could expose confidential sources, including whistleblowers and government employees, and discourage them from sharing information about corruption or wrongdoing with journalists.

How Will The RTI Law Be Affected?

The DNPA has also challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The RTI Act allows citizens to access government records, subject to certain exemptions. Journalists use it to verify official claims and investigate government decisions and policies.

Earlier, authorities could withhold personal information if it had no connection to public activity or would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, they could still disclose it if a larger public interest justified doing so.

The amendment replaces this provision with a blanket exemption for “information which relates to personal information”, removing the earlier public-interest test.

Nitin Sethi, founding editor of The Reporters' Collective, said this could substantially “take the teeth out of the RTI Act”.

“I would compare earlier attempts to dilute the RTI Act to a thousand cuts. What we have now in the form of the DPDP Act is a sledgehammer on the RTI law,” he told Decode.

The concerns come at a time when the RTI system is already struggling with delays and a growing backlog. A 2026 assessment by transparency watchdog Satark Nagrik Sangathan found that 3.85 lakh appeals and complaints were pending across 28 information commissions as of June 30.

A Long-Standing Press Freedom Concern

The DNPA's petition follows years of concerns from press bodies and civil society groups about the DPDP Act's impact on journalism and transparency.

In August 2023, the Editors Guild of India and DIGIPUB News India Foundation flagged the lack of a journalistic exemption and the amendment to the RTI Act. Both warned that data protection requirements could conflict with reporting on individuals and institutions in the public interest.

DIGIPUB also raised concerns with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), arguing that the law gave the government broad powers without providing similar safeguards for journalists. In November 2025, the organisation said it had submitted detailed questions following a meeting with the MeitY Secretary, but had received no response.

The Editors Guild said the MeitY Secretary had assured press bodies in July 2025 that journalistic work would not fall under the law. The Guild and other media organisations subsequently submitted 35 questions seeking clarity on consent, exemptions, data retention, research and public-interest reporting. “However, there has been no official response since then,” the Guild said.

The Reporters' Collective filed a separate petition in the Supreme Court in February 2026, challenging provisions of the Act and their implications for transparency and public-interest reporting.

Alluding to The Reporters' Collective's recent investigations into the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Sethi said, “All the work we did with researchers and others to analyse crores of voter records and identify irregularities could, under the DPDP Act, make whistleblowers, researchers and data analysts liable for privacy violations,” he said.

Sethi said their petition was not seeking special protection for journalists, but safeguards for all citizens seeking information in the public interest.

“We are asking for an exception to these perverse sections of the law for all citizens who want to bring out information for public purposes.”

He added that journalists were not a separate category of citizens entitled to greater accountability rights. “We are not a different breed of citizens,” he said, arguing that the ability to hold institutions accountable “should be in the hands of every possible citizen.”

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to the DNPA's petition but has not granted an interim stay on the challenged provisions. The next hearing is scheduled for November 17.

Union Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has dismissed concerns that the DPDP Act could restrict investigative journalism, saying the Constitution's guarantee of press freedom remains paramount. He has also invited editors and media professionals to discuss their concerns with the government.

The challenge comes at a time when India's press freedom ranking remains low. In the 2026 World Press Freedom Index, published by international media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), India ranked 157th among 180 countries, down from 151st in 2025. It remains in the index's 'very serious' category. RSF cited rising violence against journalists, concentrated media ownership and increasingly overt political alignment among media outlets as concerns affecting press freedom.

The DPDP Act adds another dimension to this debate, with questions over whether data protection requirements could make reporting, accessing public records and protecting confidential sources more difficult.