SC Seeks Government Response on News Publishers’ Challenge to Data Protection Law

The petition contesting elements of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and the DPDP Rules stated that they impinge on press freedom and the right to information, and the Supreme Court sought the Centre's answer on 27 October.

After hearing senior counsel Madhavi Divan's arguments on behalf of the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), a bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and V. Mohana issued the notice. Along with other matters that are still outstanding, this one has been scheduled for a further hearing on November 17.

DPDP Rules Barring Real Journalism Practices: DNPA’s Plea

The request was to have the data protection law and related regulations declared invalid on multiple grounds. According to the petition, news reporting might be severely hindered if there is no exemption for journalistic activity. It goes even beyond by endangering source confidentiality and undermining investigative journalism. In her remarks during the hearing, Divan characterised the petition as an attempt by the so-called "legacy media" to differentiate themselves from citizen journalists, and she said it was the first such complete challenge.

According to her, this might be the first extensive petition from the so-called legacy media. Citizen journalists have been the subject of heated discussion. According to the senior lawyer, the bench should take note of the request for an interim stay of the challenged clauses. The law's consent requirements, according to Divan, might render regular news gathering and reporting impossible, especially when reporters cover stories involving people who might not want their personal information used.

Petition Questioned Centre’s Several Other Norms

The senior lawyer emphasised that the regulations may significantly affect news reporting on television and other time-sensitive topics. According to her, it's broadcast live. Otherwise, it must be brand new, and the provisions may force newsrooms to close. "I have to ask for permission and consent," she said, prompting her to wonder what the point was. The group has also filed a challenge against the RTI Act's change to Section 8(1)(j).

Allegedly, the adjustment limits the amount of information that the public can access and changes the type of information that is available for public review regarding public authorities. According to Divan, the entire idea of news is being altered by the repeal of Section 8(1)(j). The petition also voiced disapproval of the DPDP Act's authority to grant the central government the ability to request information. In addition, it was mentioned that the requirements could significantly impact how news organisations operate and their capacity to cover important public issues.

The petitioner also urged the court that Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37, 44(3) of the DPDP Act and Rules 16, 17, and 23 of the DPDP Rules framed under Section 40 be declared void to the extent they are in contravention of rights under Part III of the Constitution.