Do DPDP rules affect media's working? SC seek's govt's response
Do DPDP rules affect media's working? SC seek's govt's response
The Digital News Publishers Association argues before the Supreme Court that the absence of a journalistic exemption in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act creates a de facto pre-censorship regime. By requiring journalists to seek consent before publishing information about individuals, the law threatens to paralyze newsrooms and stifle investigative reporting. This restriction is viewed as incompatible with the fundamental right to free speech and expression, potentially leading to the closure of traditional media outlets unable to comply with such burdensome procedural requirements. The petition further contends that the legislation undermines the public’s right to know and compromises source confidentiality, which are essential for holding power to account. By subjecting news gathering to rigid data protection obligations, the Act inhibits the ability to report on corruption and misconduct. The legal challenge asserts that these provisions violate constitutional guarantees, as they fail to balance privacy rights with the vital democratic function of a free press, thereby eroding the integrity of democratic discourse. This case is crucial for open data and information freedom because it highlights the tension between data privacy frameworks and the dissemination of public interest information. If the court upholds the current provisions, it could set a precedent that limits the accessibility of information through the media, affecting how data about public figures and institutions is shared. The outcome will determine whether journalistic activities remain exempt from certain data regulations, ensuring that open information flows are not restricted by excessive privacy mandates.
Source: rediff.comPublished on 2026-10-28