Supreme Court Reviews Digital Data Protection Law Impact on Press Freedom
Supreme Court Seeks Government's Response on Data Protection Law
File image of the Supreme Court of India. (Photo: X)
New Delhi, Oct 27: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court requested the Centre to respond to a petition that challenges certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and its associated rules, claiming they violate press freedom and the right to information.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued this notice after listening to senior advocate Madhavi Divan, who represented the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA).
The case is scheduled for further discussion on November 17, alongside other pending matters.
The petition aims to declare several aspects of the data protection legislation and its rules unconstitutional, arguing that the lack of exemptions for journalistic activities could hinder news reporting, threaten investigative journalism, and jeopardize source confidentiality.
During the proceedings, Divan characterized the petition as a significant challenge from what she referred to as "legacy media," differentiating established news organizations from citizen journalists.
"This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media," she stated.
The senior advocate urged the bench to consider an interim stay on the contested provisions.
Divan pointed out that the law's consent requirements could render routine news gathering and reporting impractical, especially when journalists cover stories involving individuals who may not agree to the use of their personal data.
"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?" she questioned.
She emphasized that these requirements could severely impact television journalism and reporting on time-sensitive issues.
"On television, it is live. Otherwise, it has to be new," she remarked, adding that such provisions could effectively paralyze newsrooms. "What is the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?" she queried.
The association has also contested the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, claiming that this alteration limits access to information about public officials and modifies the scope of information available for public examination.
"Section 8(1)(j), the deletion, is changing the whole concept of news," Divan argued.
The petition further expressed concerns regarding the Centre's authority to requisition information under the DPDP Act, asserting that these provisions could significantly affect the operations of news organizations and their capacity to report on matters of public interest.