New Delhi: A group representing 21 Indian news publishers, including media businesses owned by Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, has challenged provisions of India’s digital data-protection law in the Supreme Court. The publishers argue that the absence of explicit safeguards for journalism could obstruct investigations, expose confidential sources and trigger demands to remove factual reports.
The challenge has been brought by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), whose members include Ambani’s Network18, Adani’s NDTV, the Indian Express and Times Internet. According to a Reuters report, the petition was filed on October 6 this year ahead of the implementation of major disputed provisions in May 2027.
The New Indian Express reported that the matter was listed for Tuesday before a bench headed by the chief justice of India, Surya Kant. The association has sought judicial intervention against provisions it considers incompatible with the constitutional protection afforded to journalistic work.
Why publishers want protection for journalism
At the centre of the dispute is whether rules governing the collection and use of personal information adequately accommodate reporting in the public interest. The DNPA argues that prior-consent requirements could alert the subjects of investigations, while withdrawal of consent and demands for erasure could put published stories at risk.
The association has also questioned government powers to demand information, warning that these could compromise the confidentiality on which reporters and whistleblowers depend. Publishers received assurances at an August meeting that press freedom would be protected but told the court that an express legal safeguard remained necessary.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 regulates personal information collected digitally or subsequently digitized, allowing processing on the basis of consent or specified legitimate uses. It excludes certain information made public by the individual concerned or disclosed under a legal obligation, but contains no express, general exemption for journalism.
These distinctions mean the legislation does not subject every use of publicly available information to consent requirements. The publishers’ challenge concerns whether its exceptions sufficiently protect the wider process of gathering, verifying, retaining and publishing material about identifiable people.
Information demands and access to public records
Section 36 empowers the central government to require information from the Data Protection Board, entities determining how personal data is processed, and intermediaries for the purposes of the Act. Section 37 separately permits blocking directions following a board reference involving penalties on two or more occasions, an opportunity for the entity to be heard, and written reasons.
According to the Times of India, the DNPA has challenged provisions governing exemptions, the board, information demands and blocking, alongside associated rules. It argues that their combined effect infringes equality before the law and freedom of speech and expression under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).
The petition also contests section 44(3), which changes the treatment of personal information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The association argues that the amendment weakens the balance between privacy and disclosure concerning public activity, affecting journalists, citizens, whistleblowers and transparency campaigners.
Government’s explanation
The government’s published explanation of the framework presents it as a means of protecting individuals while enabling lawful data use. It says the rules followed consultations generating 6,915 inputs and provide an 18-month period for phased compliance.
The framework requires organizations to safeguard personal information and gives individuals rights concerning its use, correction and erasure in specified circumstances. Failure to maintain reasonable security safeguards can attract a penalty of up to ₹250 crore, while appeals against decisions of the Data Protection Board go to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.
On the RTI amendment, the government maintains that the changes reconcile access to information with the fundamental right to privacy without diminishing either. The publishers’ petition places that position under constitutional scrutiny, alongside the broader question of how data protection should apply to public-interest journalism.