Why in the News
Drafts of India’s data protection law in 2018, 2019 and 2021 carried an exemption for journalism, but the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 carries none. The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has challenged the Act and its Rules, and the Supreme Court, issuing notice, has stressed the need to balance press freedom with privacy.
How does the DPDP Act reach journalists?
- What it is: The DPDP Act sets rules for anyone who collects or uses personal data, meaning information that identifies a person. It protects informational privacy, a person’s control over information about them.
- Reporters as data fiduciaries: With no press exemption, a reporter probing corruption becomes a “data fiduciary”, the party deciding how personal data is used. The reporter must then notify those investigated and seek their consent.
- Uneven exemptions: The Act already exempts processing for research and statistical purposes, so denying journalism similar protection is hard to justify.
- Heavy penalties: Non-compliance can attract penalties of up to ₹250 crore, a threat to the survival of smaller and independent newsrooms.
- The takeaway: A privacy law with no press exemption can chill routine as well as investigative reporting, because personal information is integral to most news.
What does the Act change in the RTI law?
- Public-interest clause removed: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Public interest no longer overrides the bar on disclosing personal information, and the DNPA petition challenges this too.
- Why public interest matters: Protection of personal information cannot be absolute. An overriding public interest must remain a ground for disclosure, especially for information held by public authorities.
- Effect on investigations: Corruption investigations rely on asset disclosures and tender documents that contain personal data. Without them, journalism risks merely reproducing government releases.
Who should count as a journalist?
- No statutory shield: Journalists in India have no specific statutory protection. Press freedom rests on Article 19(1)(a), and the Supreme Court has shielded newspapers from arbitrary state restrictions.
- Blurred boundaries: Mistrust of legacy media and the rise of independent content creators make it hard to decide who receives such protection. The Centre has raised the same concern.
- Shift to social media: Young adults’ reliance on social media as their main news source has nearly doubled in a decade, a 2026 Reuters Institute report shows.
- Consensus over litigation: A purely legal ruling on these competing claims would be too onerous. Stakeholders need an agreed framework that stops public functionaries and handlers of public funds using privacy to escape scrutiny.
- Talks with editors: A Union Minister has said he will meet editors, a step towards consensus.
Challenges
- Wide state exemptions: The Act lets the government exempt its own agencies on grounds such as sovereignty and public order, so the state faces lighter rules than the press.
- Board’s independence: The Data Protection Board is appointed by the government, which raises concerns about its impartiality.
- Rarely used override: Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure where public interest outweighs harm, but it is invoked in under 1% of cases.
Way Forward
- Journalistic exemption: Parliament should restore an exemption for journalism, as the earlier drafts carried, tied to a public-interest test.
- Restore the public-interest test: Amend the DPDP framework so that public interest remains the overriding factor in disclosing personal information under the RTI Act.
- Define by activity: Protect newsgathering in the public interest by what is being done, not by who employs the person doing it.
- Independent Board: Select Data Protection Board members through a process independent of the government.
Conclusion
The dispute turns on whether privacy can be protected without shielding public officials from scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s hearing of the DNPA petition, and the outcome of the Centre’s talks with editors, are the next points to watch.
Key numbers
- Social media as main news source, 2015: 21% of 18- to 24-year-olds (Reuters Institute, 2026).
- Social media as main news source, 2025: 39% of 18- to 24-year-olds (Reuters Institute, 2026).
Back2Basics: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
- Data Principal rights: The person whose data is processed, the Data Principal, can access, correct and erase it, and seek grievance redressal.
- Rules: The DPDP Rules, 2025 put the Act into operation.
- Data Protection Board of India: The adjudicating body under the Act, which inquires into breaches and imposes penalties.
- Appeals: Appeals against the Board’s orders lie with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023”
