The Digital News Publishers Association has challenged India’s data protection law, raising a pressing question: could its requirements make it harder for journalists to investigate wrongdoing by requiring them to seek consent from those under scrutiny? The body representing the digital wings of major news organisations—including this one—seeks declaring certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025 unconstitutional. Its counsel told the court on Tuesday that the requirements could “shut down the newsroom”. Chief Justice Surya Kant responded: “You are the best person to suggest… how you will ensure there’s no misuse.” The court issued notices returnable on November 17.
The 724-page petition argues that without a specific exemption for journalism, newsrooms could struggle to meet the Act’s requirements. The petition notes that earlier versions of the proposed law, from 2018 to 2021, included exemptions for journalistic purposes. The 2022 draft and 2023 legislation dropped it, leaving the government to provide for exemptions. DNPA argues that its omission threatens freedom of speech.
Seeking consent before investigating suspected wrongdoing could alert those under scrutiny, putting evidence and sources at risk. Section 12, which provides for the correction, updating and erasure of personal data, raises concerns that journalists could face demands to alter or remove published reports. Section 36’s broad information-gathering powers could threaten confidential sources.
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and others have also challenged the law’s implications for the RTI Act, government exemptions and regulatory independence. Section 44(3) of DPDP Act changes the RTI Act’s rules on personal information. The earlier provision allowed personal information to be withheld in certain circumstances but permitted disclosure when a larger public interest justified it. The new provision exempts personal information without setting out those conditions.
Exercise of legislative privilege can come into conflict with press freedom. In 2003, the Tamil Nadu Assembly sentenced journalists and executives associated with The Hindu to imprisonment over critical reporting, before withdrawing the resolution in July 2004. In October 2026, the Supreme Court disposed of the proceedings as infructuous. However, larger questions surrounding freedom of expression remained unanswered.
Privacy matters, but it cannot be used to prevent legitimate scrutiny of public misconduct. Protecting individuals and allowing journalists to question those in power should not be competing goals. The law needs to uphold both.