SC seeks Centre’s response to media body’s plea challenging data protection act

The Supreme Court has formally sought the Centre’s response to a major challenge against the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and its accompanying rules. The case was brought by the Digital News Publishers Association, which says several provisions may harm press freedom and the right to information.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the notice after hearing senior advocate Madhavi Divan. The DNPA has asked the court to strike down multiple provisions and sought an interim stay. It argues that consent rules could delay or prevent routine reporting.

The case is not yet decided. The Supreme Court will hear it next on November 17, together with pending petitions. The Centre’s response will help the court examine whether the challenged provisions improperly affect journalism, investigative reporting, source confidentiality and public-interest coverage.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act is India’s legal framework for handling digital personal data. In general, it sets rules for organisations that collect or use information about identifiable people. It also gives individuals rights over their data and places duties on those processing it. The article focuses on how these rules apply to news organisations.

The key mechanism highlighted is consent. Publishers argue that requiring permission from a data principal before using personal information could make reporting difficult, especially when news is time-sensitive. They also question powers under the Act to requisition information.

The Act’s operation in journalism is now being tested in court. The DNPA says the absence of a journalistic exemption could impede reporting and investigative work. The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response and will hear the challenge with pending petitions on November 17.

The legal challenge involves 21 news publishers. It was filed by the Digital News Publishers Association, or DNPA, which represents the organisations bringing this challenge. The group says the case is a comprehensive challenge from traditional news organisations.

Senior advocate Madhavi Divan told the Supreme Court that this was perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what she called “legacy media.” She distinguished these publishers from the debate around citizen journalists and stressed that the petition represented conventional news organisations.

The scale matters because the outcome could affect many newsrooms rather than one publisher. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and will hear the DNPA’s petition alongside pending cases on November 17. The article does not identify the 21 publishers individually.

News publishers argue that consent requirements could slow or stop reporting because journalists may need permission from the person whose data is involved. News often develops quickly, so waiting for consent could prevent timely publication. The DNPA says this problem could affect ordinary, investigative and live journalism.

Madhavi Divan gave a direct example: if a newsroom is left “at the mercy” of the data principal, it may not know whether reporting can proceed. She also warned that live television coverage could be restricted because journalists might need prior permission before reporting.

The dispute is now before the Supreme Court. The DNPA has sought an interim stay on challenged provisions and wants several parts struck down. According to Reuters, media groups also told the court the law could amount to pre-censorship and force newsrooms to shut down.

The central protection publishers say is missing is an exemption for journalistic activities. The DNPA argues that the Act does not sufficiently recognise the special needs of news reporting. Without such protection, journalists may have to follow data-related requirements even when publishing information serves the public interest.

The petition specifically warns that the missing exemption could impede reporting and undermine investigative journalism. It also says the absence of protection could compromise the confidentiality of sources. Consent requirements are presented as one practical consequence, because publishers may need permission before using relevant personal information.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the Act must contain a journalism exemption. It has asked the Centre to respond to the DNPA’s challenge. The issue will be considered on November 17 along with pending petitions, making the hearing important for news organisations and their reporting practices.

The DNPA says the DPDP Act could affect journalism’s ability to protect confidential sources and report matters of public interest. Investigative reporting often depends on handling information without immediately revealing how it was obtained. The petition argues that data rules could interfere with that work.

The mechanism identified in the article is twofold. Consent requirements could force journalists to seek permission from a data principal before reporting. The petition also questions the Centre’s powers to requisition information under the Act, saying those powers could affect news organisations’ ability to pursue public-interest stories.

These are claims made by the publishers, not findings already made by the Supreme Court. The court has issued notice to the Centre and will hear the matter on November 17. Its eventual decision could clarify how data protection requirements interact with source confidentiality and public-interest journalism.

A democracy must protect people’s personal information while allowing journalists to investigate and report matters that affect the public. Privacy and consent protect individuals from inappropriate use of their data. Press freedom and access to information help citizens understand events, question power and participate in public life.

The article shows the tension through the DNPA’s concerns. Publishers say consent requirements could make routine or live reporting difficult. They also warn that the absence of journalistic protection could undermine investigations and compromise confidential sources. At the same time, the DPDP Act is designed around rules for digital personal data.

The Supreme Court’s case will examine where these interests should meet. It has sought the Centre’s response to the challenge and will hear it with pending petitions on November 17. The ruling could shape how news organisations handle personal data while reporting for public scrutiny.