Killing the Messenger? Impact of the DPDP Act on Journalism

In-House Counsel

Killing the Messenger? Impact of the DPDP Act on Journalism

Jasman Dhanoa, Sejal Lahoti | August 2025

INTRODUCTION

Journalism serves as an essential guardian of public accountability and an invaluable source of information. As the “fourth estate”, journalism is an indispensable arbiter of public opinion that not only informs citizens but also empowers them. By championing the right to freedom of expression, journalism fortifies our democratic norms and ensures that every voice is heard. We must recognise its vital role in nurturing a vibrant public discourse, as a well-informed public is crucial for the health of our society. Supporting journalism means supporting our democracy.

The Srikrishna Committee Report laid the basic legal framework for data protection in India. In its report, the committee emphasized the need for a good data protection law to achieve a balance between the right to free flow of information through freedom of speech and expression and the right to restrict such flow in the interest of privacy and safeguarding of the handling of personal data.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“Act”), which was passed in August 2023 as the first dedicated data protection law of the country, unfortunately fails to take into account the operational realities of the news industry. This is exemplified by the fact that the Act does not provide any exemption for journalistic activities, unlike contemporary international legislations governing data protection.

IMPLICATION ON JOURNALISTIC ACTIVITIES

The absence of exemptions—and the blanket application of the Act—raises several practical challenges, especially in the context of news reporting and real-time coverage, namely:

Consent: Given that journalistic activities are not identified as a ‘certain legitimate use’ under the Act, consent would be the lawful basis for processing personal data for such activities. Accordingly, to publish an investigative article on the government’s activities, for instance, a journalist/news media organization would be required to mandatorily obtain consent from the concerned person i.e., the ‘Data Principal’ who might be the subject of the article– which includes even the most basic details such as the name or age of a person. A Data Principal can simply refuse to provide consent for a plethora of reasons, not limited to the article being unfavorable.
Other operational concerns: When obtaining consent, the purpose of processing personal data will need to be informed to the Data Principal. In the context of news reporting, the purpose for data collection can change from when the data was collected to when it is finally disseminated, making it difficult to predict purposes at the stage of notice. Further, obtaining notice-based consent can add unnecessary friction to a time-sensitive sector like live news reporting. Consent based processing of personal data would also require journalists to allow withdrawal of consent or erasure of a Data Principal’s personal data. In the context of journalism, this may require taking down the article and erasing it from the digital news network which is disruptive and burdensome.
Imperils the right to access information: The Act also amended the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), thereby imposing a blanket restriction on the disclosure of any ‘personal information’ by authorities. Before the amendment, the RTI Act restricted the disclosure of personal information by authorities in cases where disclosure did not have any nexus with public interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, the authorities could disclose personal information if the Central/State Public Information Officer/appellate authority was satisfied that such disclosure would serve a larger public interest. With the amendment, the public interest exception is no longer available. This will adversely impact investigative journalism in India, which relies on information largely sourced from RTI Act-related disclosures.
Possible govt. overreach: The broad power of the central government to call for information under Section 36 of the Act can potentially jeopardise news journalism. Journalists (who could be classified as Data Fiduciaries if they source personal information/data) may thus be asked to provide information about their sources which would be contrary to the principle of disclosure of sources as identified in the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, further deterring news reportage that is in public interest.

GLOBAL PRACTICE

In the European Union, the GDPR allows processing for journalistic purposes to be exempted from requirements of notice, restriction on data transfer, obligations of data controllers and processors, regulatory oversight etc. Similarly, under the Singaporean Personal Data Protection Act, 2012, a news organization is allowed to collect, use or disclose personal data of an individual solely for its news activity. Various other data protection frameworks across the globe including China, Canada, South Africa, and Brazil also provide exemptions for journalistic purposes.

CASE FOR EXEMPTION

All previous iterations of the Act, except the 2022 bill, exempted journalistic activity from the scope of its application. The Srikrishna Committee Report recognised the need to exempt journalistic activities from the scope of a data protection framework. It noted that while explicit obligations may not be imposed, journalists must adhere to certain ethical standards which should provide detailed guidance on the above-mentioned obligations pertaining to notice and consent, rights of data principals, etc. Further, the report noted that the ethical standards, issued by any statutory media self-regulatory organization, must clearly outline the basis for obviating compliance with obligations under the Act based on a ‘clearly established larger and identifiable public interest’. This would ensure that the exemption for journalistic activities is used for bona fide activities, furthering public interest and preventing any misuse by unscrupulous journalists/organisations.

OUR VIEW

Recognizing the importance of free and fair journalism in a democracy, the Act should be amended to exempt journalistic activities from onerous obligations under the Act. Specifically, Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which exempts the applicability of the Act for specific activities, could be amended to include journalistic activities within its ambit, subject to adherence to ethical standards mandated by organisations like the Press Council of India, News Broadcasting Standards Authority, etc.

About Author

Jasman Dhanoa

Jasman Dhanoa is a Senior Associate at ADP Law Offices, where he is an integral member of the advisory team. He earned his degree from Gujarat National Law University. At the Firm, Mr. Dhanoa’s practice is concentrated on providing legal counsel to clients in various sectors, including technology, media and telecommunications, cybersecurity, data protection, artificial intelligence, medical devices, consumer protection, advertising, and privacy law.

Sejal Lahoti

Sejal Lahoti is an associate in the advisory team at ADP Law Offices. She advises clients on issues of data protection, artificial intelligence, electronics, and consumer protection, among others, helping them navigate the regulatory landscape. She graduated from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University. Sejal has previously worked with the TMT teams at reputed Delhi NCR and Bengaluru law firms.