‘Newsrooms will shut down’: Digital news publishers challenge DPDP law in SC

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), representing 21 digital news publishers, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) that newsrooms could be forced to shut down if the Centre’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and its accompanying rules are enforced without an exemption for journalistic activities.

The association argued that the absence of such an exemption could fundamentally alter how journalists gather and report news, particularly investigative stories involving personal information. It warned that requiring journalists to obtain consent from individuals before publishing information about them would amount to pre-censorship and undermine press freedom.

Next hearing on Nov 17

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Union ministries of Law and Justice and Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The court declined to grant an interim stay on the law without first hearing the Centre.

Also read: Why independent journalists matter in a shrinking media space

“No stay without hearing the other side. But notice on stay application issued,” the CJI said. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17, along with other pending petitions.

‘Complete regime of pre-censorship’

At the outset, senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, urged the Bench to consider its application for an interim stay, arguing that the absence of a journalistic exemption could seriously impede news gathering and reporting. “This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media,” she said.

Divan argued that journalists should not have to seek permission from individuals before reporting on them, particularly when investigating matters of public interest. “Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. It is a complete regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask your permission if we report on you. How can that ever be? What is news otherwise? If we report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences,” she said.

Also read: Who controls the news we consume? Does legacy media matter any more?

She also questioned why earlier versions of the legislation had provided an exemption for journalism, which was absent from the current framework. “When the court examines this Act in detail, it will find that it was not meant for journalism at all. In fact, the earlier versions excluded journalism. We do not know why this has happened. Clearly, it was not meant for us,” she said.

Challenge to DPDP Act and Rules

The DNPA’s petition seeks to strike down several provisions of the DPDP Act and its accompanying rules as unconstitutional to the extent that they infringe fundamental rights and impede journalistic activities.

The association contended that the law’s requirements relating to notice, consent, withdrawal of consent and erasure of personal data could obstruct investigative reporting and compromise the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

According to the petition, journalists investigating corruption, misconduct or irregularities in public affairs may need to collect and process personal information about the very individuals whose conduct they are scrutinising. Requiring compliance with the same data protection obligations in such circumstances, it argued, could seriously restrict reporting in the public interest.

The plea relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right. It argued that the data protection framework must also respect freedom of speech and expression and the public’s right to know.

The challenge invokes Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, freedom of speech and expression, the right to practise a profession, and the right to life and personal liberty.

Challenge to amendment to RTI Act

A key part of the petition concerns Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, dealing with the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.

Also read: The World Was Not Their Story review: A reporter’s journey beyond ‘navel-gazing’ beat

The DNPA has sought a declaration that the substituted provision is unconstitutional. It argued that the amendment could restrict access to information of public interest and affect the ability of journalists to scrutinise public authorities.

The petition also challenges Sections 36 and 37 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules. According to the association, Section 36 empowers the Centre to seek information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without adequate safeguards governing necessity, proportionality, judicial oversight or notice to affected individuals.

The DNPA’s members include Network18 and NDTV, associated with the Reliance and Adani groups respectively, as well as The Indian Express, Times Internet, The Hindu, India Today, Zee Media, ABP Pvt Ltd, Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Amar Ujala and Eenadu Television, among others.

(With agency inputs)