DPDP Act Could 'Close Newsrooms': SC Asks Centre on Media Plea
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond to a plea by media associations claiming the DPDP Act could kill investigative journalism.
The Supreme Court has stepped in to examine a critical legal challenge brought forward by legacy media organisations regarding the DPDP Act (Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023). On Tuesday, a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued a notice to the Central Government, seeking its response to a plea that claims the law could cripple investigative journalism in India.
The Core of the Conflict: Privacy vs. Press Freedom
The petition, filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), argues that the strict provisions of the DPDP Act regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal data are fundamentally incompatible with the nature of newsgathering. Representing the association, senior advocate Madhavi Divan presented a stark warning to the court: the law could effectively create a "pre-censorship regime."
The primary concern raised is the requirement for consent. Divan argued that if journalists are forced to seek consent from the very individuals they are investigating, the essence of investigative reporting would vanish. This would leave newsrooms dependent on the subjects of their stories, potentially silencing reports on corruption, scams, or corporate malpractice.
Key Concerns Raised by the DNPA:
- Compromised Sources: The law could force the disclosure of confidential journalistic sources, which are the backbone of whistleblowing.
- Operational Shutdowns: The plea suggests that the stringent data mandates could virtually "close down newsrooms" across the country.
- Interference in Reporting: Concerns were raised over how the law governs the retention and deletion of personal data, which could interfere with the archival and verification processes of journalism.
The Court's Balanced Perspective
While the court listened to the grievances of the media houses, CJI Surya Kant emphasized the need for a middle ground. He noted that a delicate balance must be maintained between the fundamental right of citizens to protect their personal data and the constitutional freedom of the press.
The bench highlighted that since the petitioners are "domain experts" in the field of journalism, they are in the best position to help the Union government and the court identify specific areas where the law could be misused, while still ensuring that citizen rights remain protected.
What Happens Next?
The DNPA had urged the court to grant interim protection to shield journalists from the law's immediate effects. However, the Supreme Court declined to grant an interim stay at this stage, stating that it cannot halt the law without first hearing the perspective of the Central Government.
This legal battle comes at a pivotal time, as the data protection framework is being implemented in phases, with several key substantive provisions set to come into effect by May 2027. The matter is now scheduled for a further hearing on November 17.