Officials from the IT ministry will meet media bodies on July 28 to address the concerns about some provisions of the country’s data privacy law that impact journalists, including the amendments to the Right To Information (RTI) Act through the digital privacy data protection (DPDP) Act.
This comes a month after 22 media bodies sent a joint memorandum to IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw highlighting some provisions of the data privacy law that have “serious repercussions for press freedom and the profession of journalism.” Ministry officials, including secretary S Krishnan, will hold a meeting with the Editor’s Guild of India, Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, among others to understand their concerns. Principal DG of PIB Dhirendra Ojha will also be present at the meeting next week.
The memorandum, which bears the signatures of 1,020 journalists, outlines five key demands of the journalists to the government. One of the central demands is the complete restoration of the original section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which journalists describe as a vital legal tool for pursuing public interest journalism.
Through section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, the government has proposed amending section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, reducing an 88-word provision to a mere six words, significantly diluting its original scope and intent. The undiluted provision stipulates that personal information can be withheld only if it doesn’t have any relevance to public interest, or if its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the authorities are satisfied that a larger public interest justifies its release.
{{/usCountry}}Through section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, the government has proposed amending section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, reducing an 88-word provision to a mere six words, significantly diluting its original scope and intent. The undiluted provision stipulates that personal information can be withheld only if it doesn’t have any relevance to public interest, or if its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the authorities are satisfied that a larger public interest justifies its release.
{{/usCountry}}The amended provision would take away this safeguard, enabling authorities to deny information solely on the grounds that it is “personal,” regardless of its relevance to public accountability.
“We, the undersigned, demand that the unamended Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act be restored in totality because it has been one of the most effective legal tools for practising journalism in the public interest,” said the memorandum, seen by HT.
Apart from the RTI-related concern, the media bodies have asked for exemptions for journalists from the DPDP Act’s definitions such as “data fiduciary,” “data processor,” and “personal data,” which, they claim, criminalise routine journalistic work. Second, it urges the removal or amendment of provisions which require informed consent from individuals before collecting or publishing their personal data. Third, it calls for inclusion of journalists and media organisations among exempted entities, noting that startups are listed while the press is not. And fourth, it demands the protection of journalistic sources, warning that the powers granted to the Data Protection Board and the government could compel disclosure of confidential information.
In a letter dated March 23, 2025, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh had urged Vaishnaw to review and repeal section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, adding that it destroys the RTI Act. In response, the Union minister had said that the amendment doesn’t restrict disclosure of personal information, but rather strengthens the privacy rights of the individuals and prevents the potential misuse of the law.
HT reached out to the IT ministry for comments, but did not receive a response till the time of going to print.