On 27 October 2026, a three-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard the Digital News Publishers Association's challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The Court issued notice to the Centre and MeitY, per Bar & Bench. It declined to stay the Act without hearing the government and listed the matter for 17 November, according to MediaNama. The DNPA's 21 members include The Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, Network18 and Bennett Coleman.
The case for the Act as written
The strongest defence of the DPDP Act is simple. Privacy is a fundamental right after Puttaswamy (2017). Newsrooms hold large amounts of personal data, from source details to reader information to subjects' records, and they can leak or misuse it like any other holder. A statute that exempted "the press" wholesale could also be claimed by anyone who calls themselves a publisher. A regulator that cannot tell the two apart will tend to prefer a general rule.
That argument explains why journalism needs a calibrated exemption. It does not explain why the Act has none.
What the Act leaves out
India has been here before. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee's 2018 report, A Free and Fair Digital Economy, has a dedicated section on "Journalistic Activities" in its chapter on exemptions. It covers the conflict between privacy and free speech, ethics standards, and which obligations should apply. MediaNama's summary notes that the committee recommended a journalistic exemption.
The enacted law took a different path. SFLC.in's analysis points to the lack of "a specific exemption for journalistic work". It says this has "grave and long-term implications" for press freedom. It also notes that the DPDP Rules, notified on 13 November 2025, brought Section 44(3) into effect. That provision amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, and SFLC argues it "effectively dismantles the right to information".
The consent architecture creates a second problem. The Editors Guild of India told MeitY in February 2024 that Section 7 consent requirements "may not cover processing personal data for journalistic activities". It asked for a class exemption under Section 17(5), as MediaNama reported. A story about an official's assets, a company's conduct, or a police excess is built on personal data about someone who will not consent. The DNPA told the Court that newsrooms would shut down if journalists had to seek permission before publishing, per press reports of the hearing.
Why a promise is not a fix
IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has said that "Journalistic freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, and there is no intention to affect that". He has invited editors to make submissions. MediaNama reports that government sources say the government is prepared to "hard-code" an explicit media exemption. It also reports that he gave no assurance of an amendment.
That gap matters for three reasons.
- Intent is not law. A Section 17(5) notification can be issued, narrowed or withdrawn by the executive. The Editors Guild's own proposed route, a class exemption "for as long as such purposes subsist", still leaves the press dependent on the goodwill of the ministry whose conduct it scrutinises.
- Uncertainty chills before enforcement does. An editor weighing a story about a named official does not need a penalty to be imposed. The risk that one could be imposed is enough to kill a borderline investigation.
- The government has not yet answered the Court. Without a stay, the Act stays in force while the Union's reply is awaited. Publishers are operating under a law whose reach over their work is untested.
What a proportionate fix looks like
A good exemption does not have to be a blanket one. The Srikrishna framework already showed the structure: exempt journalistic processing from consent and notice obligations, and keep security safeguards and an ethics-based test. A narrow carve-out of that kind protects sources and archives while leaving breach duties in place. SFLC suggests adding journalism alongside research, archiving and statistical purposes in Section 17(2)(b). That is a drafting change, not a rewrite of the Act.
The pro-innovation case is also practical. India's digital news sector is a significant employer of engineers, product teams and independent publishers, and the smaller ones lack the compliance staff that the 21 DNPA members can afford. Compliance duties written with large data fiduciaries in mind will bear hardest on small outlets, which is where new voices and new products tend to start.
What to watch on 17 November
The Court has been careful, and it is unlikely to strike down a statute on a first hearing. The more useful outcome would be a government statement in open court on whether it will amend the Act, notify a Section 17(5) class exemption, or defend the law as drafted. A commitment on record would carry more weight than a press remark. If the Union offers only a rules-level or notification-level fix, the Court should ask why Parliament, which wrote the omission, should not write the correction.
The DPDP Act was meant to build trust in India's digital economy. A data law that makes accountability journalism harder to practise undermines that purpose. It is also easy to fix, and the government says it is willing to fix it. The remaining question is whether it will do so in the statute.