Digital Personal Data Protection Act does not affect freedom of the press, claims Vaishnaw

Union Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said on Wednesday that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act does not violate the freedom of the press. He emphasized that the freedom of journalism is guaranteed by the Constitution and is fully available. Vaishnaw added that the purpose of this law is to protect personal data without harming the freedom of the media and he has no intention of affecting the freedom of journalism.

The Information Technology Minister invited media professionals and editors to have an open dialogue with the government regarding concerns about this law. He clarified that the DPDP Act was introduced following the Supreme Court's verdict which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right. Vaishnaw further stated that this law was prepared after a consultation process of more than a year with stakeholders including newspapers, television channels, media representatives, and the information technology industry. He said that the provisions of the DPDP Act do not violate the freedom of the press, journalism, and media anywhere.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court issued a notice on Tuesday on a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging the DPDP Act, 2023 and the rules made under it in 2025. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain a balance between the citizens' right to privacy and the media's freedom to investigate and report. The bench headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant has decided to hear the matter on November 17. The bench has also issued a notice on the association's petition seeking a stay on the implementation of the challenged provisions.

Appearing on behalf of the DNPA, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan told the court that this petition is the first comprehensive challenge made by "legacy media" representing traditional news publishers. She argued that this law could fundamentally change the method of practicing journalism because news organizations collecting or processing personal information for reporting will have to obtain consent. Divan warned that if permission and consent have to be taken for news, then the news will not remain new and this structure could become like pre-censorship, due to which newsrooms may become unable to work on cases related to public officials and government offices. She further said that this would shut down newsrooms and if a report is wrong, publishers should face the consequences, but there is no need to take permission in advance.

The court asked Divan how they could suggest what the central government and the court should do to ensure the law is not misused. Chief Justice Kant said that it is necessary to maintain a balance between the rights of innocent citizens and your rights. The court also suggested the association explain how they will ensure that reporting does not violate the rights of individuals.

At the center of this dispute is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The association says that this amendment will end the protection of previous public interest disclosures for personal information and may limit access to records related to public accountability. The petition argues that the data protection framework fails to distinguish between journalism conducted in the public interest and other types of data processing. If a distinction is not made, journalists may face demands for consent, withdrawal of consent, or erasure of information even when they have relevant information in investigations of corruption, corporate malpractice, or misconduct by public officials.

DNPA represents 21 news publishers, including media companies associated with the Adani and Ambani groups as well as several well-known newspapers and television networks. According to a high-level source, if it is felt that the law needs to be amended to clearly protect journalistic activities, the government is ready for that too. The source added that if 'hardcoding' is necessary, it can be amended because the government's intention is clear and any confusion can be removed through an amendment in Parliament.