The Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed the need to strike a balance between citizens’ right to privacy and the media’s freedom to investigate and report, as it issued notice on a petition by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the rules framed under it in 2025.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also issued notice on the association’s interim prayer for a stay on the operation of the challenged provisions. The court will hear the matter on November 17.
“You are the best person to suggest to the Union and us how you will ensure there is no misuse,” the bench told senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, as it underlined that the privacy rights of ordinary citizens would have to be protected alongside the media’s constitutional freedoms.
“There will be rights of innocent citizens, and then there is your right. A balance has to be struck,” CJI Kant said.
Divan told the bench that the petition was the first comprehensive challenge by what she described as “legacy media”, representing conventional news publishers. She argued that the law could fundamentally alter the way journalism is practised by requiring news organisations to obtain consent before collecting or processing personal information for reporting.
“News has to be new…what is the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?” she asked, warning that the framework could effectively introduce pre-censorship and leave newsrooms unable to pursue stories involving public officials and government offices.
{{/usCountry}}“News has to be new…what is the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?” she asked, warning that the framework could effectively introduce pre-censorship and leave newsrooms unable to pursue stories involving public officials and government offices.
{{/usCountry}}“Newsrooms will shut down…regime of pre-censorship…what’s news otherwise?” said Divan, adding that publishers were subject to regulatory mechanisms, including the Press Council of India. If a report was inaccurate, she said, the publisher should face the consequences rather than be required to obtain prior permission before publication.
The bench reiterated that the competing rights would have to be reconciled. When Divan asked how journalists could report under the proposed framework, the court suggested the association might also explain how it would ensure that reporting did not infringe the rights of individuals.
The petition assumes significance because it challenges not merely the general framework for protecting digital personal data, but also the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activity. The DNPA represents 21 news publishers, including prominent newspaper and television networks.
At the heart of the challenge is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The association contends that the amendment removes the earlier public-interest disclosure safeguard for personal information and could significantly restrict access to records relevant to public accountability.
The petition argues that the data protection framework fails to distinguish journalism undertaken in the public interest from other forms of processing personal data. Without such a distinction, reporters could face demands for consent, withdrawal of consent and erasure of personal information even when the information is relevant to investigations into corruption, corporate wrongdoing or misconduct by public officials.
The association of news publishers, including media companies like The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express, Mathrubhumi, Manorama, and India Today, has also challenged Section 36 of the Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules, which empower the Union government to requisition information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries.
It argues that the provision lacks adequate safeguards, including judicial oversight and clear requirements of necessity and proportionality, and could expose confidential journalistic sources to identification or targeting.
The DNPA has maintained that the law threatens freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to equality under Article 14, besides undermining the public’s right to information. It has also argued that the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right does not justify a framework that leaves journalism without adequate constitutional safeguards.
The government’s data protection framework is intended to regulate the processing of digital personal data and protect individuals against misuse of their information. The legal challenge places before the court the question of how those protections should operate when personal information is essential to reporting matters of public interest.