SC seeks Centre’s reply on plea by media association against privacy law

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the data-protection law is constitutional. Instead, it issued notice to the Union government and asked for its response to the petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association. This begins the court’s examination of the challenge.

The association represents 21 news organisations. It argues that the Act and rules could restrict journalistic work, including reporting by journalists, citizens, whistleblowers and Right to Information activists. It also says the law conflicts with privacy, speech, expression and information rights.

The government’s response will help shape the next stage of the case. The article does not state a hearing date or final outcome. The immediate reality is that the Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s position while concerns about sources, transparency and possible indirect censorship remain before it.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act creates duties for organisations that process personal data. It calls these organisations data fiduciaries. The Act matters because it governs how personal information is collected and used, while also setting limits on disclosure.

Its rules explain how organisations should handle data, notify people about breaches and obtain consent. Notices must be easy to understand. They must state why data is collected, how it will be used and what types are collected. Users must be able to withdraw consent as easily as they gave it.

The rules were notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in November 2025. They brought the 2023 Act into effect. The article also reports that Section 44(3) bans disclosure of personal information without defining “personal information”, a point central to the association’s challenge.

The association at the centre of the challenge represents 21 news organisations. That figure shows the petition comes from a group spanning multiple publishers, rather than from one newsroom alone.

The article identifies some members indirectly by ownership. It says the association includes organisations owned by businesspersons Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani. The group argues that the data law affects the full range of journalistic activity.

The number is also important because the association is presenting the case as an industry concern. It says the Act threatens journalists, ground reporters, citizens, whistleblowers, Right to Information activists and other stakeholders. The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response, but the article gives no final ruling on the association’s claims.

The association’s concern begins with Section 44(3), which imposes a blanket ban on disclosing personal information. The provision does not define what counts as “personal information”. The group argues that this broad and unclear restriction could cover information needed for reporting.

Journalism often depends on information from sources, whistleblowers and citizens. The petition says the law threatens journalists, ground reporters, Right to Information activists and other stakeholders. The rules also give the Union government power to requisition information from data fiduciaries or intermediaries, according to the petition.

The association says that power could identify and target journalistic sources because it lacks judicial oversight. It calls the authority “unbridled and standardless”. The article reports that press bodies fear the ambiguous obligations could enable indirect censorship, but the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these arguments.

The petition says the rules give the Union government an “unbridled and standardless authority” to requisition information. The requested information could come from any data fiduciary or intermediary. A data fiduciary is any entity that processes personal data.

This matters because such organisations may hold information connected to users, communications or reporting activity. The petition says the government’s power is not subject to judicial oversight. It warns that the authority could be used to identify and target journalistic sources.

The article presents this as the association’s constitutional objection, not as a settled court finding. The Supreme Court has issued notice and sought the Union government’s response. The government’s explanation and the court’s later assessment will determine how this power is understood and whether the challenge succeeds.

The conflict arises because privacy protection and public disclosure can pull in different directions. The Act’s Section 44(3) imposes a blanket ban on disclosing personal information without defining the term. Critics say that uncertainty could restrict information that journalists, citizens and Right to Information activists use to scrutinise institutions.

The association argues that the law “impermissibly restricts” the fundamental right to information and freedom of speech and expression. It also says the Act contradicts the Supreme Court’s privacy judgment, which recognised privacy as fundamental to human dignity and life. The article describes these as claims in the petition.

Critics further say the law threatens the transparency and accountability that the Right to Information Act was designed to uphold. The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to respond. Until the court rules, the precise relationship between the data law, information rights and speech remains contested.

A democratic balance requires collecting personal information for clear purposes, explaining its use and protecting people from unnecessary disclosure. The rules address some of this by requiring understandable notices, consent, breach notifications and easy withdrawal of consent. Privacy protects dignity and personal control.

Transparency serves a different public need. Journalists, citizens, whistleblowers and Right to Information activists may need access to information to examine power and expose wrongdoing. The article says Section 44(3) bans disclosure of personal information without defining it, while the petition warns that government information requests could identify sources.

The article presents this balance as unresolved. It reports concerns that ambiguous duties could enable indirect censorship and weaken the Right to Information Act’s accountability goals. Strong safeguards would need to prevent misuse while preserving legitimate reporting and public scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s review, after the Union government responds, may clarify that boundary.