The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has challenged the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and its Rules, 2025 in the SC, saying a privacy law with no exemption for journalism can chill the media.

Publishers say a law meant to protect privacy can end up shielding those under investigation.

• No journalistic exemption: The 2018, 2019 and 2021 drafts had one, but the 2023 Act does not, and the DNPA’s petition says this leaves reporters under the Act’s rules.
• Reporters as “data fiduciaries”: A journalist probing corruption or official misconduct may have to notify and seek consent from the very person being investigated, even in routine newsgathering.
• Uneven treatment: The Act already exempts some processing, such as research and statistics, so refusing the same to journalists is hard to justify.
• Heavy penalties: Fines of up to ₹250 crore could shut smaller and independent newsrooms.
• Comparison: The EU’s GDPR has a journalism exemption (Article 85).

The DNPA’s petition says the change weakens the public’s right to examine officials.

• Earlier: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempted personal information with no link to a public activity or interest, but allowed disclosure where a larger public interest justified it.
• Now: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act removes that balancing test, so personal information can be refused outright.
• Effect on reporting: Investigations into corruption rely on asset disclosures and tender documents, which hold personal data. The petition says restricting them could reduce journalism to reproducing government releases.
• The challenge: The DNPA asks the Court to declare the amended clause unconstitutional.

• No statutory protection: Journalists have no specific law for their work. The press is protected under Article 19(1)(a).
• Changing news habits: A 2026 Reuters Institute report says the share of 18 to 24-year-olds using social media as their main news source rose from 21% (2015) to 39% (2025).

• Chilling effect: Fear of penalties can stop investigations in the public interest.
• Legal uncertainty: Until the Court rules, publishers face open questions on consent and erasure.
• Defining the exemption: Too wide an exemption can be misused, and too narrow can exclude real journalism.