The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025, on the ground that they could restrict press freedom and impede investigative journalism.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, which represents digital news publishers.
Ms Divan urged the Court to consider issuing notice on the plea for interim relief, arguing that the challenged provisions could fundamentally alter the way news is gathered and reported. She submitted that journalists could be required to seek consent from individuals before reporting on them, potentially creating a regime of pre-censorship.
“
“If I am left to the mercy of the data principal on whether or not he or she will give consent, the concept of news has to be… on TV it is live, otherwise it has to be new. What is the point if I have to ask for permission and for consent? … This Act, when Your Lordships see it in detail, was not meant for journalism at all. It was not. In fact, the earlier avatars excluded it. We don’t know why this has happened. Clearly, it was not meant for us.”
She argued that the DPDP framework had not been designed to regulate journalism and the absence of an explicit exemption for journalistic activities could seriously affect newsrooms. She also pointed out that publishers were already subject to several regulatory frameworks, including the Press Council of India framework, cable television regulations and the Information Technology Rules.
She submitted that news organisations must be allowed to report on matters of public interest while remaining accountable for inaccurate or incorrect reporting. She argued that journalists could face consequences for improper reporting, but their work should not be blocked before publication merely because the subject of a report had not consented.
The Court observed that a balance would have to be struck between protecting individual rights and safeguarding the public interest in news reporting. Ms Divan responded that the DNPA had already made a representation to the government after filing its petition and would assist the Court in addressing the competing concerns.
The petition challenges provisions of the DPDP Act and Rules that, according to the association, could require journalists to seek consent before processing personal data, allow individuals to seek erasure of information and expose confidential journalistic sources through government demands for information.
The DNPA has argued that these provisions could hamper investigations into corruption and corporate wrongdoing, allow subjects of investigations to interfere with reporting, and force publishers to delete or alter reports. The association has also objected to the absence of an explicit journalistic exemption comparable to safeguards available in some other jurisdictions.
The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 17, 2026. The Centre has been asked to respond to the challenge.