DNPA Challenges DPDP Act 2023 Over Lack of Journalistic Exemption – Supreme Court Notice

Overview The DNPA has filed a petition challenging the DPDP Act and its Rules. The petition argues that the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activity could create a chilling effect on media investigations and routine newsgathering. Key Developments The petition highlights that journalists may be treated as data fiduciaries , obligating them to obtain consent from subjects they are investigating. Non‑compliance with the DPDP Act can attract penalties up to ₹250 crore , threatening smaller newsrooms. The petition also contests Section 44(3) , which stripped the public‑interest qualification for personal data disclosure under the RTI Act. The Supreme Court has issued notice, urging a balance between press freedom and privacy. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw signalled willingness to meet editors to seek consensus. Important Facts Earlier drafts of the DPDP Act in 2018, 2019 and 2021 included a journalistic exemption, which was removed in the final version. The Act does provide exemptions for research and statistical purposes, making the denial of a similar protection to journalists harder to justify. The penalty provision of up to ₹250 crore is a flat amount, not proportionate to the size of the outlet. A 2026 Reuters Institute report shows that the share of 18‑ to 24‑year‑olds citing social media as their primary news source rose from 21 % in 2015 to 39 % in 2025, indicating a shift away from traditional print. UPSC Relevance Understanding the tension between Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy is essential for GS 2 (Polity). The case illustrates how data‑protection legislation can impact fundamental rights, a recurring theme in UPSC ethics and governance questions. The financial penalty aspect links to GS 3 (Economy) by highlighting regulatory burdens on media enterprises. Way Forward Stakeholders should negotiate a clear journalistic exemption within the DPDP framework. Parliament may consider amending Section 44(3) to restore the public‑interest test for personal data. The Supreme Court could issue guidelines balancing privacy with investigative journalism. Media bodies, civil society and the Ministry of Information Technology should develop a consensus‑based code of practice for handling personal data in newsrooms.