SC issues notice to Centre over DNPA plea against DPDP Act

Media groups warn of newsroom shutdowns

The Digital News Publishers Association, which represents 21 major news entities in India, argues that the Act's requirements for consent could effectively shut down newsrooms.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioners, told the bench that the Act's provisions would shut down the newsroom by requiring journalists to obtain consent from individuals before reporting on them. She argued that this requirement amounts to pre-censorship of the press.

The petition states that without a journalistic exemption, journalists and news publishers could be required to give notice, obtain consent, and erase personal data even when gathering and publishing information in the public interest. The petitioners argue that these provisions violate fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

Arguing that the lack of a journalistic exemption might radically alter news gathering and reporting practices, Madhavi Divan pressed the Court to review the stay application.

Absence of journalistic exemption questioned

The petitioners pointed out that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act lacks a specific exemption for journalistic activities. Previous versions of the proposed legislation in 2018, 2019, and 2021 included such protections.

Counsel Divan questioned why this exemption was removed in the current version of the law. The petition contends that Section 17(2) is arbitrary because it grants exemptions for research, archiving, and statistical processing.

This section excludes journalism that serves the public interest from these protections.

Concerns over government access and source confidentiality

The petition challenges Section 36 of the Act and Rule 23, which grant the government broad powers to access information. These powers operate without judicial oversight, potentially exposing the confidential sources used by reporters.

The Central Government is granted unrestricted power to requisition information through Section 36, when read alongside Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule. This authority applies to any Data Fiduciary or intermediary without requiring notice to the affected Data Principal.

Additionally, the petition disputes Section 37(1), which grants the Central Government the authority to limit public access to information. The petitioners claim this provision could be used to limit news dissemination.

Challenges to Data Protection Board's adjudicatory powers

The constitution and the authority vested in the Data Protection Board of India by Sections 18, 19, and 27 are also challenged in the petition. Adjudicatory functions are performed by the Board to investigate breaches of personal data and failures to meet statutory obligations.

This body has the authority to impose penalties on entities. Selection of the Chairperson and members is conducted by the executive, with no legal requirement for the inclusion of a judicial member.

The petitioners contend that conferring adjudicatory authority upon an executive body in the absence of sufficient institutional safeguards presents constitutional issues.

Amendment to RTI Act restricts public interest disclosure

This amendment, they argue, establishes a comprehensive prohibition on the release of personal information. This restriction applies regardless of whether the information concerns a public official or is justified by larger public interest.

Under the previous provision, authorities could only refuse disclosure of personal information if it had no relationship to public activity or interest. The petitioners argue that the earlier provision balanced the right to privacy with the public right to know. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds case) to bolster their argument that the fundamental right to know must not be surrendered for the sake of privacy.

The Supreme Court referred the petitions challenging this amendment to a three-judge bench in February.

CJI Surya Kant advises petitioners to suggest safeguards

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant advised the petitioners to suggest specific safeguards to the Union government. He noted that media organisations are positioned effectively to propose protections against the misuse of personal data while simultaneously safeguarding journalistic freedom. He noted that they are domain experts who can explain how to prevent misuse while balancing citizens' rights.

Representatives from the association also met with ministry officials on August 25, 2026.

Next hearing scheduled for November 17

The Supreme Court has set November 17, 2026, as the return date for the notice and the application for a stay on the Act's provisions. The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, with independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal named as a co-petitioner. The plea was filed through ADP Law Offices and advocate Anuj Tiwari, as well as advocate Mamidipudi Venkatarama Mukunda.

The court scheduled the matter to be heard again on November 17, 2026.