DPDP Act 2023 -Data Privacy Law Challenged in Supreme Court

Context:

Recently, The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), representing digital news publishers across the media spectrum, has challenged provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025, before the Supreme Court.

Background:

• • • The DPDP Act, 2023, establishes a framework for protecting digital personal data and regulating its processing by organisations, including digital platforms such as Meta and Google.
    • However, the DNPA argues that the law fails to provide a specific exemption for journalistic activities. According to the petition, notice, prior consent and data-erasure requirements could obstruct investigations involving public officials, corruption and corporate misconduct.
    • The association contends that the law threatens journalists, ground reporters, whistleblowers, RTI activists and citizens engaged in public-interest reporting.

Major Concerns Raised:

• • • Absence of journalistic exemption: Consent and erasure requirements may impede investigative reporting.
    • Government access to information: Section 36 of the Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the Rules, is challenged for allegedly granting excessively broad powers to requisition information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries.
    • Threat to confidential sources: The absence of adequate safeguards, according to the petition, could facilitate the identification of journalists’ sources and whistleblowers.
    • Impact on RTI: Section 44(3) amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, raising concerns about restrictions on access to personal information held by public authorities.
    • Chilling effect: Potential legal consequences may discourage reporting on corruption and other matters of public interest.
    • These are the petitioners’ allegations; their constitutional validity remains subject to judicial determination.

Constitutional and Legal Aspects:

• • • Article 14 – Equality before the law: The petition raises concerns about arbitrariness and the absence of a distinct legal framework for journalistic processing.
    • Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression: Freedom of the press, although not separately enumerated, is protected under this Article. Restrictions must satisfy Article 19(2).
    • Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Bench recognised privacy as a fundamental right.
    • Article 32 – Constitutional remedies: Provides the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
    • Section 36 of the DPDP Act: The challenge concerns the scope of government information-requisition powers and the alleged absence of adequate procedural safeguards.
    • Section 44(3) and the RTI Act: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) raises questions about balancing privacy with transparency and public accountability.
    • Principle of proportionality: Restrictions on fundamental rights must pursue a legitimate objective and satisfy constitutional requirements of necessity and proportionality.

Significance:

The case highlights the tension between informational privacy and democratic accountability. While data protection is essential to prevent misuse of personal information, its implementation must also account for investigative journalism, whistleblower protection and citizens’ access to public-interest information.

Conclusion:

India must harmonise the right to privacy with freedom of expression and transparency. A proportionate, rights-based framework can protect personal data without unnecessarily weakening investigative journalism or democratic accountability.