India's Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act will go a long way towards empowering and protecting personal privacy, and making data collection more transparent and accountable. However, data privacy provisions in the Act have generated quite a debate about how the changes in laws would impact on investigative reporting, transparency and access, and the ability of media houses to cover matters of public interest.
The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), on October 27, 2026, raised the issue before the Court by challenging the DPDP Act and Rules made thereunder for the year 2023 as a group consisting of 21 media outlets.
The publishers said that in the absence of a clear exception for journalists, it would be difficult for them to carry out their regular functions of reporting and investigative articles.
After that, the Court asked the government to clarify its stand. Currently, the challenge is pending and no decision has been made yet.
Source: Reuters
What Is India’s DPDP Act?
The DPDP Act sets a precedent for lawful handling of digital personal information within India. It also specifies the conditions governing consent, the use of personal information and individuals' rights to their data. The DPDP Rules which followed in November 2025, elaborated the provisions of many of these requirements.
Among the objectives of the Act is empowering citizens to regulate their personal information as much as possible. In order for example, data collectors or users must in most cases have a justifiable reason for this such as having been given consent or a permitted legitimate use under the Act.
These conditions pose several duties when handling sensitive personal data for businesses and other bodies. Nonetheless, the publishers' association contends that subjecting the same set of laws to journalism without an explicit exemption could hinder the investigative activities of reporters involving individuals, businesses or public bodies.
Why Media Groups Are Challenging the Law
The main issue highlighted by the publishers is that the existing statute lacks a particular exemption related to journalism. Legally, their challenge implies that if reporters are to collect and publish data relating to private life without knowing how this would be permissible within the scope of the law, they may find themselves at a loss when confronted with an article that has to do more with private life rather than public interest.
Investigative journalism frequently requires journalists to go through financial documents, company relationships, the personal lives of political figures or allegations against anyone. In the course of this kind of work reporters have to rely on personal information of individuals without getting permission first from those concerned. If they were required to ask for consent it might notify the subject of investigation leading them to destroy evidence and to manipulate witnesses.
Accordingly, they state that the legislators' proposals might hamper the way in which journalists carry out their research prior to a publication of a story. Another thing they note is that some drafts of the bills contained journalistic exemption clauses but in the final version it was dropped.
Source: Bar and Bench
Could Consent Requirements Affect Investigative Reporting?
Getting consent has become one of the fiercest points of contention in the entire debate around personal data processing.
In most cases, organisations are required to get consent from data subjects along with other legally recognized bases under the DPDP Act to legitimise the processing of the personal data.
A news organisation, however, might not always have the ability to get that person's approval. Suppose in a case a journal is looking for proof of a possible financial violation in an organization. In such a situation, the investigation will probably involve personal information, private corporate records, and information coming from insiders.
If the law imposes the obligation upon the journalist to first alert, then seek permission, from the subject before processing the personal information, it would likely lead the journalist to take an extremely defensive stance.
The subject of the journalistic report could refuse to give consent, could file legal complaints against the publication of the content, or could initiate measures that ultimately affect the journalism process.
All of these are possible issues that have been pointed out by the news publishers, but none of these can be considered as a definite ruling of the courts that every use of personal data by journalists would require the subject giving their consent first. The way the law will finally be decided will ultimately be based on how it is interpreted through case law and legal opinions.
Concerns About Confidential Sources and Whistleblowers
Investigative reporting is a craft that depends heavily on confidential sources who disclose information about corruption, misconduct or other issues that would probably remain hidden. These informants often come in the form of employees, officials, or people who have a legitimate fear of losing their job, getting into legal trouble, or losing their friends and family if their identities become known.
In addition to that, the DNPA has also raised issues with clauses that let the state compel organizations handling personal data to hand over information. Their main worry is that these powers could be used, without sufficient safeguards, to uncover confidential communications or to disclose the identity of journalistic sources.
Whistleblowers may be reluctant to contact journalists with their revelations if they are convinced that exposing the facts will result in them being identifiable in some way. This could have a double effect: limiting the information flow available to journalists, and turning some investigations practically unattainable.
It is understandable that the main reason for privacy is protecting the privacy of the individuals who are mentioned in a report, but another equally important aspect is that it is essential to keep the secrecy of the sources who will help the journalists to investigate the powerful individuals and their organizations.
Source: Reuters
The Debate Over Removing Published Information
Another issue concerns the right to withdraw consent and request the erasure of personal data. Media publishers worry that these provisions could be used to challenge previously published reports containing personal information.
For example, a news article about a public investigation may include information about an individual’s professional conduct or alleged involvement in wrongdoing. If the person later requests that the information be erased, publishers fear they could face pressure to remove or heavily edit the report.
This raises questions about how individual privacy rights should interact with public-interest reporting and the preservation of news archives. A published report may remain relevant long after its original publication, particularly when it documents a public inquiry, legal proceeding or historical event.
The publishers argue that the law needs safeguards to prevent privacy-related requests from undermining accurate reporting or erasing information that remains important to the public. The legal challenge seeks clarity on how these competing interests should be balanced.
How the DPDP Act Relates to the Right to Information
The matter is about the alterations to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The DPDP Act revised the rule regarding the disclosure of personal information under RTI.
In the past, the applicable provision had conditions that permitted disclosure of personal information if there was a bigger public interest. However, now under the revised clause, personal information is not subject to disclosure which has led critics to fear that government agencies will be handling records with such data very discreetly.
For journalists, getting hold of state and authority documents often reveals how government decisions are made by the public authorities, how taxpayers' money is spent and whether public institutions are functioning properly and lawfully. Publishers claim that the modifications will make it tougher to access some kinds of information and they will lose that public interest argument.
Hence, the discussion is not only about the newsroom's duties. It also deals with the interplay of privacy laws with transparency and public accountability; it is a question of the public's right to know about decisions made by their institutions.
Balancing Individual Privacy With Press Freedom
The debate does not mean that privacy and journalism must be treated as opposing goals. Individuals have legitimate reasons to expect their personal information to be handled responsibly, and news organisations should not have unlimited freedom to publish private details that are irrelevant to a story.
At the same time, reporting on matters of public interest may require journalists to use personal information without obtaining advance permission from the people being investigated. A workable framework needs to recognise the difference between unnecessary exposure of private details and reporting that helps the public understand important issues.
Media groups are asking for clearer legal safeguards for journalism, including protections for confidential sources and reporting conducted in the public interest. The Supreme Court has emphasised the need to balance individual privacy rights with press freedom and has sought the government’s response to the challenge.
The outcome of the case may help clarify how India’s data protection framework applies to news publishers and whether additional safeguards are needed for journalistic work.
What Happens Next?
The DPDP Act’s framework is scheduled to come into effect in stages, with key provisions due to take effect in May 2027. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the publishers’ challenge will be important in determining how the disputed provisions are interpreted and whether any changes or safeguards are required.
Until the Court reaches a decision, the publishers’ arguments should be understood as concerns raised in an ongoing legal challenge, not as a final ruling on the law’s effect on journalism.
The broader question is how India can strengthen personal data privacy while ensuring that journalists can continue to investigate matters of public importance. The answer will depend on how the law is implemented, how the courts interpret its provisions and whether meaningful safeguards are established for both individual privacy and public-interest reporting.
Top comments (0)