{"id":2969,"date":"2026-10-27T09:31:51","date_gmt":"2026-10-27T09:31:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/10\/27\/supreme-court-notices-dnpa-challenge-dpdp-act\/"},"modified":"2026-10-27T09:31:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T09:31:51","slug":"supreme-court-notices-dnpa-challenge-dpdp-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/10\/27\/supreme-court-notices-dnpa-challenge-dpdp-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Notices Challenge to India\u2019s Data Protection Law by Legacy News Publishers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<!-- Quick Adsense WordPress Plugin: http:\/\/quickadsense.com\/ -->\n<div class=\"9fece8afa224fd09e54b043d0febfb58\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- NR ATF -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-8898941184964366\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"4839033563\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"auto\"\r\n     data-full-width-responsive=\"true\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\n<\/div>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2>Petition Overview and Parties Involved<\/h2>\n<p>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\u202f18. The association is joined in the filing by independent investigative journalist Yukta\u202fMudgal, based in New Delhi. The petition was lodged under Article\u202f32 of the Constitution, which provides a direct route to the Supreme Court for the protection of fundamental rights.<\/p>\n<p>The petition specifically challenges Sections\u202f7,\u202f17(2),\u202f18,\u202f19,\u202f27,\u202f29,\u202f36,\u202f37 and\u202f44(3) of the DPDP Act, as well as Rules\u202f16,\u202f17 and\u202f23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025. The petitioners argue that these provisions impose notice, prior\u2011consent and erasure obligations on publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents that are incompatible with routine journalistic practice.<\/p>\n<p>Senior Advocate Madhavi\u202fDivan, appearing for the petitioners, warned that the contested provisions could \u201cshut down the newsroom.\u201d She emphasized that the petition represents the first comprehensive legal challenge mounted by what she described as \u201clegacy media\u201d \u2013 traditional, conventional news organisations that rely on timely reporting rather than prior permission from data principals.<\/p>\n<h2>Legal Arguments Presented<\/h2>\n<p>The petitioners contend that the DPDP Act fails to provide a specific exemption for journalistic activities. Earlier drafts of data\u2011protection legislation \u2013 the Personal Data Protection Bill of 2018, the 2019 Bill and the 2021 Bill \u2013 each contained a dedicated exemption for journalism (Section\u202f47 in the 2018 draft). The final 2023 Act, however, omitted such a carve\u2011out, instead leaving any exemption to be notified by the Central Government.<\/p>\n<p>According to the petition, this omission exposes journalists to the same data\u2011processing 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\u202f17(2) is arbitrary because activities such as research, archiving and statistical processing enjoy exemptions, whereas journalism serving the public interest does not.<\/p>\n<p>Beyond the lack of a journalism exemption, the petition challenges specific powers granted to the Central Government. Section\u202f36, read with Rule\u202f23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules, allegedly permits the government to demand information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without adequate safeguards \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<p>Section\u202f37(1) is also contested. It empowers the government to restrict public access to information in \u201cspecified circumstances.\u201d 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\u2011censorship.<\/p>\n<p>The constitutionality of the Data Protection Board of India is another focal point. The petition questions the Board\u2019s authority under Sections\u202f18,\u202f19 and\u202f27, noting that its adjudicatory powers over fundamental rights are vested in an executive\u2011appointed 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.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the petition challenges Section\u202f44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends the Right to Information (RTI) Act by substituting clause\u202f(j) of Section\u202f8(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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h2>Supreme Court\u2019s Initial Response<\/h2>\n<p>The bench hearing the petition comprised Chief Justice of India Surya\u202fKant, Justice Joymalya\u202fBagchi and Justice V\u202fMohana. The Chief Justice invited the petitioners to propose safeguards that could address the Union\u2019s concerns while protecting journalistic freedom. \u201cYou are the domain experts. You are the best person to suggest the Union and us how you will ensure there\u2019s no misuse,\u201d CJI Kant remarked.<\/p>\n<p>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\u202f10,\u202f2026, outlining concerns about the enforcement of the DPDP Act and its rules. A follow\u2011up meeting between DNPA representatives and ministry officials took place on August\u202f25,\u202f2026.<\/p>\n<p>During oral arguments, Divan reiterated that the Act \u201cwas not meant for journalism at all\u201d and warned that requiring prior permission to report would amount to \u201cpre\u2011censorship.\u201d 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\u202f17\u202f(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.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s 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\u2011reaching implications for how digital news platforms operate in India, especially regarding the handling of personal data, source protection and the public\u2019s right to information.<\/p>\n<p>As the legal battle unfolds, the DNPA and its member organisations are expected to present concrete safeguards that reconcile data\u2011privacy objectives with the functional necessities of a free press. The Court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition by the Digital News Publishers Association seeking to strike down key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, arguing they threaten newsroom operations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2970,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[299],"tags":[3321,3322,216,1790,335],"class_list":["post-2969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-data-protection","tag-digital-news-publishers-association","tag-india","tag-press-freedom","tag-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2970"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}