Can amend privacy act, revoke law if needed: Government

The Centre said it is willing to adjust the Digital Personal Data Protection framework so it does not hinder journalism. Officials first pointed to changes in the rules. They also said the law itself could be amended if needed. This matters because media organisations argued that the framework could affect freedom of speech and expression.

The proposed approach is to create exemptions or clarifications for journalists and media houses. Officials said the rules could address concerns that the Act does not expressly exempt media organisations. Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnav also said media does not fall within the category of data fiduciaries covered by Section 7.

The Centre’s response followed the Supreme Court’s decision to examine a challenge by the Digital News Publishers Association. The government said it would address the concern through rules and, if necessary, legislation. The stated aim is to protect privacy without making journalistic work an impediment under the DPDP framework.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act is a framework for protecting personal data and privacy. It places obligations on data fiduciaries, meaning entities that keep and control people’s data. The Act is presented as serving citizens’ right to privacy while setting conditions for processing personal information.

Section 7 illustrates the mechanism. It says a data fiduciary may process a data principal’s personal data for a specified purpose when the person voluntarily provided it and has not indicated a refusal. The article gives banks, telecom providers and insurance companies as examples of data fiduciaries.

The law’s application to journalism is now disputed. The Centre says journalists and media houses are not data fiduciaries, while the Digital News Publishers Association challenged parts of the Act and its rules. The Supreme Court has agreed to examine that challenge. The government has said rules, or the law itself, may be changed if needed.

A data fiduciary is an organisation that keeps and controls personal data. The DPDP Act places obligations on these entities because they handle information belonging to data principals. The government says this category includes institutions such as banks, telecom providers and insurance companies.

Section 7 shows how the category works. A data fiduciary may process personal data for a specified purpose when a data principal voluntarily provided it and did not indicate a lack of consent. The Centre argues that journalists and media houses are not entities covered in this way. Therefore, officials say provisions flagged as threats to speech apply to fiduciaries, not journalists.

The issue remains contested because the Act does not expressly exempt media houses, according to the concern raised in the article. The Digital News Publishers Association challenged the Act and its rules. Officials said the rules could clarify the position, with a legal amendment possible if that is insufficient.

Twenty-one of India’s leading news media organisations are represented by the Digital News Publishers Association in its legal challenge. The association brought the case to contest provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and the rules framed under it.

The challenge focuses on the possible effect of the framework on journalism. The association alleged that the law violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It also said the framework threatens the full spectrum of journalistic activity. The number therefore identifies the scale of the organisation’s representation, not the number of provisions challenged.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the plea. In response, the Centre said it is open to changing the rules and, if necessary, the law itself. Officials said exemptions could be created for journalists and media houses. The dispute will therefore involve both the Act’s legal validity and how its rules apply to media work.

The central concern is that data-protection requirements could interfere with journalism. The Digital News Publishers Association alleged that the DPDP Act threatens the full spectrum of journalistic activity. It also argued that the law violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The concern is especially significant because reporting can involve handling personal data.

The article does not identify a specific newsroom action that would be blocked. It does say journalists worry because the Act does not expressly exempt media houses. If the framework were applied to them, media organisations could face the obligations intended for data fiduciaries. That is why the Centre discussed carving out exemptions in the rules or law.

The government disputes the immediate reach of the Act. Officials say journalists and media houses are not data fiduciaries, and Section 7 concerns entities such as banks, telecom providers and insurers. The Supreme Court will examine the DNPA’s challenge, while the Centre remains open to clarifying or changing the framework.

The Centre said it could address media concerns by changing the rules under the DPDP Act. Officials specifically referred to carving out exemptions for journalists and media houses. This would offer a direct clarification about how the existing framework applies, while leaving the Act’s basic structure in place.

The article says officials believed the rules could allay concern because they have the same power as the law. If that approach proved insufficient, the Centre said it could go further and change the law itself. A legislative amendment would alter the statutory text, rather than only the rules made under it. The article does not say the government plans to revoke the Act.

This flexibility was offered after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the DNPA’s challenge. The government maintains that journalists are outside the data-fiduciary category, but acknowledges concern about the absence of an express media exemption. It therefore leaves open both rule changes and a possible amendment to the Act.

Privacy and free expression can point in different directions when journalism involves personal data. Privacy protection seeks to control how information about people is handled. Journalism, meanwhile, depends on the ability to investigate and communicate information. The article presents this tension through concerns that the DPDP Act could obstruct journalistic activity.

The Digital News Publishers Association alleged that the Act threatens the full spectrum of journalism and violates freedom of speech and expression. Journalists are concerned because the Act does not expressly exempt media houses. If media organisations were treated like data fiduciaries, duties connected with processing personal data could affect reporting. The article does not specify a particular report or practice that would be stopped.

The Centre says the law is aimed at data fiduciaries, such as banks, telecom providers and insurers, not journalists. It has offered possible exemptions in the rules or the law itself. The Supreme Court’s examination of the DNPA challenge will address the contested relationship between privacy protection and press freedom.