The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to declare Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act unconstitutional. It also challenges Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025. Independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal, based in New Delhi, is also a petitioner.
The DNPA comprises the digital wings of 21 major news organisations, including The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, Times Group, Zee, NDTV and Network 18. The association has argued that the provisions impose restrictions incompatible with the functioning of newsrooms and the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the petitioners, told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the provisions could force newsrooms to shut down.
“This is the first comprehensive petition by ‘legacy media’. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media. This will change the whole concept of news. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal on whether he or she will give consent, the concept of news will be gone... News has to be new. It will close down the newsroom. What's the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?” Divan submitted.
The Chief Justice of India observed that the petitioners were in a position to suggest safeguards to the Union government.
“You are the domain experts. You are the best person to suggest the Union and us how you will ensure there's no misuse,” the CJI said.
Divan informed the bench that the organisation had submitted a representation to the Centre after filing the petition. According to the petition, the DNPA submitted a detailed representation to the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and Information Technology on August 10, 2026, raising concerns about the enforcement of the DPDP Act and Rules. A meeting between DNPA representatives and officials of the Ministry was subsequently held on August 25, 2026.
The CJI emphasised that a balance must be maintained between citizens’ rights and those of the media.
Arguing against the absence of a specific exemption for journalism, Divan said the legislation was not originally intended to cover journalistic activities and warned that its implementation could introduce a system of pre-censorship.
“This Act, when your lordships will see it, was not meant for journalism at all. The earlier avatars excluded us, we don't know why this has happened. It was not meant for us. Newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. This will set in a regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask someone's permission to report on them! How can that be? What will be news then? We will face the consequences if there is something wrong, but it cannot be frozen before it is published. We are regulated in any case,” Divan submitted.
The bench issued notice on the petition as well as the application seeking a stay, making the matter returnable on November 17. Divan also informed the court that other petitions challenging the amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act were pending, but the DNPA's plea was the first comprehensive challenge focusing on the impact of the legislation on journalism.
The petitioners have argued that the DPDP Act does not provide a specific exemption for journalistic activities. They contend that publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents could be subjected to requirements relating to notice, prior consent and erasure of personal data that are incompatible with the ordinary functioning of the press.
According to the petition, investigative journalism frequently involves uncovering personal information relevant to public affairs, including corruption and misconduct in public office. Requiring journalists to obtain consent from individuals whose conduct they are investigating, the petitioners argue, could frustrate efforts to bring matters of public importance to light.
The petition also highlights changes in successive versions of the proposed data protection legislation. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, provided an exemption for journalistic purposes under Section 47. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, and the subsequent Data Protection Bill, 2021, also contained provisions exempting journalistic activities.
However, the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, did not retain a specific exemption for journalism and instead contemplated exemptions to be notified by the Central Government.
The petitioners contend that the absence of a specific journalistic exemption in the enacted legislation leaves news publishers and journalists vulnerable to restrictions that could undermine their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
They have also challenged the classification under Section 17(2), arguing that it is arbitrary because certain activities, including research, archiving and statistical processing, receive exemptions, while journalism serving the public interest does not.
The petition further argues that the legislation treats journalists differently from the State, which enjoys exemptions for certain data-processing activities undertaken for enforcing criminal laws.
Another major aspect of the challenge concerns Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules. The petitioners argue that these provisions grant the Central Government broad powers to demand information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without adequate safeguards, including judicial oversight, requirements of necessity and proportionality, or notice to the affected individual.
According to the petition, these powers could be used to identify and target confidential journalistic sources, potentially discouraging whistleblowers from sharing information about matters of public importance.
The petitioners have also challenged Section 37(1), which empowers the Central Government to restrict public access to information in specified circumstances. They contend that the power to block access to information in the interests of the general public is excessively broad and could be used to restrict the dissemination of news.
The constitutional validity of the Data Protection Board of India is another issue raised in the petition. The petitioners have questioned the Board's constitution and powers under Sections 18, 19 and 27 of the DPDP Act.
They argue that the Board exercises adjudicatory powers involving fundamental rights, including the authority to inquire into personal data breaches and violations of statutory obligations and impose penalties. However, its Chairperson and members are selected by the executive, and the legislation does not require the inclusion of a judicial member.
The petitioners contend that vesting such adjudicatory powers in an executive body without adequate institutional safeguards raises constitutional concerns.
The DNPA has separately challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which substitutes clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioners argue that the amendment creates a blanket restriction on the disclosure of personal information, irrespective of whether the information relates to public activity, concerns a public official acting in an official capacity or is justified by larger public interest.
Under the earlier provision, disclosure of personal information could be refused where it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, subject to the statutory framework and applicable exceptions. According to the petitioners, the earlier provision maintained a balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know by permitting disclosure where larger public interest justified it.
In support of their argument, the petitioners have referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, the Electoral Bonds case. They contend that the fundamental right to know cannot be sacrificed at the altar of privacy.
In February, the Supreme Court had referred the petitions challenging the DPDP Act amendment to the RTI Act to [the source text ends before specifying the subsequent details].
About The Author
Comment List