Indian publishers contest Modi government’s privacy law

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which has members drawn from across the media spectrum, including those owned by the Ambani and Adani Groups, have challenged the Union government’s privacy law as a violation of journalistic freedom.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions filed by activists on October 27.

Also read | Supreme Court to examine impact of data protection law on RTI, investigative journalism

The petition filed by the DNPA, which is also listed before the Bench, challenged specific provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

The DNPA said the law was completely in contravention with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its privacy judgment, which held the right inviolable and fundamental to human dignity and life.

“They impermissibly restrict the fundamental right to information and freedom of speech and expression,” the petition said.

The law fails “to provide any exemption in favour of journalistic activity as a distinct class of processing, entitled to constitutional protection under Article 14 and 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India and threatens the full spectrum of Journalistic activity carried out by journalists, ground reporters, citizens, whistleblowers, RTI activists, and other stakeholders, and strikes at the core of our democratic framework and runs contrary to the basic tenets of the Constitution of India,” the petition said.

It said publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents were, as a consequence of the law, brought within a regime of notice and prior consent, compelled erasure, and verifiable consent.

Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules, vested the Central government with an unbridled and standardless authority to requisition any information from any data fiduciary or intermediary, unaccompanied by judicial oversight, any requirement of necessity or proportionality, or notice to the affected data principal.

“Such a power is capable of being turned to the identification and targeting of journalistic sources and is thus constitutionally infirm,” the petition said.

Section 44 (3) of the DPDP Act, by amending Section 8 (1 )(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, has placed every category of “personal information” beyond the reach of disclosure.

Further, by amending the Right to Information Act 2005, the DPDP Act has created an absolute bar on the seeking of information relating to public offices.