Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on DNPA Plea Challenging DPDP Act Over Press Freedom Concerns

NEW DELHI: In a significant development concerning media rights and digital governance, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on a comprehensive petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA). The petition challenges key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and its accompanying rules, arguing that the legislation infringes upon press freedom and the right to information.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued the notice after hearing extensive arguments from Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, who appeared on behalf of the DNPA.

Contentions of the Petition

Representing the traditional institutional media, the DNPA’s petition marks a major challenge by legacy news organizations against the current data protection framework. The core arguments presented before the apex court include:

• Absence of Journalistic Exemptions: The plea contends that the statute fails to provide explicit exemptions for journalistic activities, which could severely hinder news reporting, paralyze investigative journalism, and undermine the confidentiality of sources.
• Pre-Censorship Risks: Senior counsel argued that mandating prior consent from individuals (“data principals”) before publishing information creates an unworkable standard for newsrooms, effectively turning into a regime of pre-censorship.
• Impact on Time-Sensitive Reporting: Emphasizing the nature of television and digital media, the petition pointed out that forcing news organizations to rely on explicit individual consent for live or fast-breaking news would freeze operations and defeat the very essence of timely reporting.

“If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported? On television, it is live. Otherwise, it has to be new… What is the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?” — Madhavi Divan, Senior Advocate

Court’s Observations

While recognizing the gravity of the challenge, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical need to strike a delicate balance between fundamental rights—specifically reconciling citizens’ right to privacy with the media’s freedom to investigate and report.

Addressing the petitioners, the Bench remarked that as domain experts in the media industry, publishers are best positioned to suggest workable safeguards that protect investigative journalism while preventing potential abuses of exemptions.

The apex court, however, declined to grant an immediate interim stay on the operation of the challenged provisions at this preliminary stage.

The Supreme Court has directed the Union to file its formal response. The matter has been slated for further hearing on November 17, where it will be taken up alongside other pending petitions addressing the data protection regime.