Media groups challenge India’s privacy law at top court

India’s privacy law regulates how organisations handle personal data. Its most controversial effect for journalism is the reported requirement that journalists seek consent from people they write about. Publishers say this could change how news is gathered and published.

For example, a journalist investigating corruption might have to notify the person under investigation and ask permission to use personal information. People can withdraw consent later and demand that their data be erased. The law also allows fines for noncompliance and gives New Delhi power to block information in the “interests of the general public.”

The law will also let New Delhi order organisations handling personal data to furnish requested information from next year. News publishers fear these powers could interfere with reporting, force factual stories to be unpublished or heavily redacted, and expose confidential sources. The Supreme Court will hear their challenge next month.

A group of 21 news publishers has challenged India’s privacy law in the Supreme Court. Their concern is not limited to one newsroom. It includes several of the country’s most prominent media organisations, making the dispute a broad industry challenge.

The group includes Network18, owned by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, and NDTV, owned by billionaire Gautam Adani. Network18 operates seven digital news platforms. Other members include the Indian Express and Times Internet, which is part of the Times of India group, publisher of India’s largest-selling English-language daily.

The publishers argue that the law could obstruct investigative journalism and reveal journalists’ sources. The Supreme Court said it would hear the case next month. The challenge follows an August meeting in which media companies received government assurances that press freedom would be protected, although publishers say those assurances were not enough without a written exemption.

The publishers describe consent as pre-censorship because it would place a permission requirement before publication. Instead of deciding later whether a story is accurate or lawful, journalists could first have to ask the person being investigated for approval. Madhavi Goradia Divan said this would change the whole concept of news.

A journalist investigating a powerful person might have to notify that person and seek consent before using relevant personal data. The DNPA says the subject could then destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses. The subject could also later withdraw consent and demand deletion, potentially forcing a newsroom to unpublish or redact a factual report.

Publishers warn that such a system could make investigative reporting unworkable. Their lawyer told judges that newsrooms could shut down if permission were required. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge next month, while the publishers seek written protection for journalism.

Investigative reporting depends on reporters being able to examine evidence and question wrongdoing without warning the subject first. Publishers say a consent requirement would reverse that process. The person under investigation could learn what the journalist is examining before the report is complete.

The DNPA gave a concrete risk: notifying a subject and seeking consent could allow that person to destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses. The law also lets people withdraw consent and demand that their data be erased. Without a public-interest safeguard, publishers say this could force them to unpublish or heavily redact factual news reports.

The result could be weaker investigations into corruption, corporate wrongdoing, or electoral malpractice. It could also make reporting more expensive and difficult for newsrooms. Publishers say the law’s fines and government information-blocking powers add pressure. The Supreme Court will consider these arguments when it hears the case next month.

Confidential sources often provide information because they believe reporters can protect their identities. The publishers say India’s law could undermine that protection. From next year, New Delhi may order any organisation handling personal data to furnish information it requests, potentially reaching information held by newsrooms.

The DNPA says this power could extend to privileged communications held by a reporter or informant. A newsroom might therefore face pressure to disclose records connected with a source. Separately, requiring journalists to notify subjects could reveal that an investigation is underway and expose how evidence was obtained.

These risks could discourage whistleblowers from sharing evidence about corruption, corporate wrongdoing, or electoral malpractice. Fewer sources could mean fewer investigations and less public knowledge of misconduct. Publishers call the government-information power “nakedly unguided” and want it quashed. The Supreme Court will hear their challenge next month.

The publishers say the European Union, Singapore, and Britain have written exemptions for journalists. The article does not detail every safeguard in those systems. It establishes that these places provide explicit protection for journalism, while India’s law does not contain a comparable written exemption.

That difference matters because the Indian requirement could affect investigations, consent, data deletion, and access to newsroom information. A journalist might need to notify a subject before publication. The subject could then interfere with evidence, intimidate witnesses, withdraw consent, or demand erasure. Written protection could define when journalism serves the public interest.

Indian media companies received assurances at an August meeting that press freedom would be protected. Publishers remain alarmed because those assurances were not written into the law. They want a clear legal safeguard that protects reporting and sources, rather than relying on promises. The Supreme Court will examine their challenge next month.

Press freedom means journalists can gather, investigate, and publish news without being forced to obtain approval from the people they report on. It also depends on sources being able to share information safely. The article presents this freedom as important because reporting can reveal misconduct that might otherwise remain hidden.

For example, a journalist could investigate corruption, corporate wrongdoing, or electoral malpractice. If the subject had to give consent, that person might destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses. If officials could demand newsroom information, reporters might have to reveal sources or privileged communications. Those pressures could prevent a story from being completed.

The publishers say India’s law threatens these functions through consent, deletion rights, fines, and government access to information. They want written protection for journalism, as they say exists in the European Union, Singapore, and Britain. The Supreme Court will hear the challenge next month, making the case a test of how the law affects reporting.