Twenty-one news publishers have challenged India’s privacy law, warning that consent requirements, data-erasure demands and government access to information could undermine investigative journalism, expose confidential sources and pave the way for pre-censorship.
India’s privacy law has been challenged before the Supreme Court by a group of 21 news publishers, who have argued that its provisions could severely restrict press freedom and obstruct investigative journalism. The law has been alleged to create a system of pre-censorship by requiring journalists to seek consent from individuals whose personal information is used in news reports.
The challenge was brought by media organisations, including entities associated with Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, with concerns being raised over the potential impact on independent reporting and the protection of confidential sources. According to The Indian Express, the petitioners have argued that journalists could be prevented from pursuing investigations if prior consent were made mandatory.
Representing the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), advocate Madhavi Goradia Divan reportedly told the court that the proposed requirements could fundamentally alter the nature of news reporting. It was argued that newsrooms could be forced to seek permission before publishing reports, effectively subjecting journalism to a regime of pre-censorship.
Consent Requirement Under Scrutiny
Serious concerns have been raised over the requirement to obtain consent from individuals whose personal data is processed for journalistic purposes. In its filing, the DNPA has argued that investigative subjects could be alerted to ongoing inquiries, thereby enabling evidence to be destroyed and witnesses to be intimidated.
It has further been contended that individuals could withdraw consent at any time and demand the erasure of their personal data, potentially forcing news organisations to remove or substantially redact otherwise factual reports. The absence of an adequate public-interest safeguard has been cited as a major concern.
The petitioners have also pointed to the absence of an explicit journalistic exemption comparable to provisions available in jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom and Singapore. Although assurances regarding the protection of press freedom were reportedly provided during a meeting with government representatives in August, the lack of a written exemption has been described as alarming.
Government Powers and Source Protection
Concerns have also been expressed over the powers granted to a federal authority to impose penalties for non-compliance and over the government’s ability to restrict access to information in the interests of the general public.
According to the DNPA, such provisions could be used in ways that restrict access to information and interfere with the publication of matters of public importance. The law has also been criticised for allowing the government, from next year, to require organisations processing personal data to furnish information demanded by the authorities.
It has been argued that the provision could place journalists under pressure to disclose confidential sources, including whistleblowers who provide information about corruption, corporate misconduct and electoral malpractice. The potential exposure of privileged communications held by reporters or informants has been identified as a particularly serious threat.
The DNPA has therefore urged the Supreme Court to strike down the provision, describing the powers conferred upon the government as insufficiently guided by clear safeguards.
The outcome of the proceedings is expected to have significant implications for the relationship between personal-data protection and press freedom in India. At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: whether privacy protections can be enforced without compromising the ability of journalists to investigate matters of public interest and protect those who provide information in confidence.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.