The Supreme Court of India issued a notice on Tuesday in response to a writ petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA). The petition seeks to declare several sections of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and related rules unconstitutional, contending that the law jeopardises the functioning of newsrooms and infringes on press freedom.
Petition Overview and Parties Involved
DNPA is an umbrella body representing the digital operations of 21 prominent news organisations, including The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, the Times Group, Zee, NDTV and Network 18. The association is joined in the filing by independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal, based in New Delhi. The petition was lodged under Article 32 of the Constitution, which provides a direct route to the Supreme Court for the protection of fundamental rights.
The petition specifically challenges Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act, as well as Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025. The petitioners argue that these provisions impose notice, prior‑consent and erasure obligations on publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents that are incompatible with routine journalistic practice.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the petitioners, warned that the contested provisions could “shut down the newsroom.” She emphasized that the petition represents the first comprehensive legal challenge mounted by what she described as “legacy media” – traditional, conventional news organisations that rely on timely reporting rather than prior permission from data principals.
Legal Arguments Presented
The petitioners contend that the DPDP Act fails to provide a specific exemption for journalistic activities. Earlier drafts of data‑protection legislation – the Personal Data Protection Bill of 2018, the 2019 Bill and the 2021 Bill – each contained a dedicated exemption for journalism (Section 47 in the 2018 draft). The final 2023 Act, however, omitted such a carve‑out, instead leaving any exemption to be notified by the Central Government.
According to the petition, this omission exposes journalists to the same data‑processing constraints that apply to ordinary data fiduciaries. The requirement to obtain consent before processing personal data, the petition argues, would cripple investigative reporting that often relies on uncovering personal information linked to public wrongdoing, corruption or misconduct in public office. The petitioners further assert that the classification under Section 17(2) is arbitrary because activities such as research, archiving and statistical processing enjoy exemptions, whereas journalism serving the public interest does not.
Beyond the lack of a journalism exemption, the petition challenges specific powers granted to the Central Government. Section 36, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules, allegedly permits the government to demand information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without adequate safeguards – notably, without judicial oversight, a necessity test, proportionality assessment or notice to the affected individual. The petitioners warn that such powers could be used to identify confidential journalistic sources, thereby discouraging whistleblowers from coming forward.
Section 37(1) is also contested. It empowers the government to restrict public access to information in “specified circumstances.” The petitioners argue that the language is overly broad and could be invoked to block the dissemination of news, effectively instituting a regime of pre‑censorship.
The constitutionality of the Data Protection Board of India is another focal point. The petition questions the Board’s authority under Sections 18, 19 and 27, noting that its adjudicatory powers over fundamental rights are vested in an executive‑appointed body lacking a judicial member. The petitioners claim that this structure raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly when the Board can impose penalties for alleged data breaches.
Finally, the petition challenges Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends the Right to Information (RTI) Act by substituting clause (j) of Section 8(1). The amendment is said to create a blanket prohibition on disclosing personal information, even when such disclosure pertains to public officials acting in an official capacity or serves a larger public interest. The petitioners cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (the Electoral Bonds case) to argue that the fundamental right to know cannot be overridden by a blanket privacy provision.
Supreme Court’s Initial Response
The bench hearing the petition comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. The Chief Justice invited the petitioners to propose safeguards that could address the Union’s concerns while protecting journalistic freedom. “You are the domain experts. You are the best person to suggest the Union and us how you will ensure there’s no misuse,” CJI Kant remarked.
Senior Advocate Divan replied that DNPA had already submitted a detailed representation to the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and Information Technology on August 10, 2026, outlining concerns about the enforcement of the DPDP Act and its rules. A follow‑up meeting between DNPA representatives and ministry officials took place on August 25, 2026.
During oral arguments, Divan reiterated that the Act “was not meant for journalism at all” and warned that requiring prior permission to report would amount to “pre‑censorship.” She emphasized that newsrooms cannot operate if they must obtain consent before publishing, arguing that such a regime would stifle the very essence of news. The bench, while acknowledging the need to balance citizen privacy with media rights, issued notice on both the petition and an accompanying application for a stay, setting a return date of November 17 (2026). Divan also noted that other pending petitions challenge the amendment to the RTI Act, but this is the first comprehensive challenge based on the impact on journalism.
The Supreme Court’s notice signals that the judiciary will scrutinise the compatibility of the DPDP Act with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression. The outcome could have far‑reaching implications for how digital news platforms operate in India, especially regarding the handling of personal data, source protection and the public’s right to information.
As the legal battle unfolds, the DNPA and its member organisations are expected to present concrete safeguards that reconcile data‑privacy objectives with the functional necessities of a free press. The Court’s forthcoming deliberations will determine whether the contested sections of the DPDP Act will be upheld, amended or struck down, shaping the regulatory landscape for digital journalism in India for years to come.
Be First to Comment