Media Association Challenges Digital Privacy Law

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has challenged the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025, as a violation of journalistic freedom.

Concerns Raised by the Petition

• Absence of journalistic exemption: The law does not provide a distinct exemption for journalistic activities, potentially subjecting publishers and reporters to notice, consent and data-erasure requirements.
• Government access to personal data: Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules, is challenged for allegedly granting the central government broad powers to requisition information without adequate judicial oversight or safeguards.
• Impact on the RTI Act: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, concerning the disclosure of personal information.
  • The DNPA argues that the amendment could excessively restrict access to information held by public authorities.
• Protection of journalistic sources: The petition argues that these powers could expose confidential sources, including whistleblowers and RTI activists, thereby discouraging investigative journalism.

Constitutional Frameworks

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of speech and expression, providing the constitutional basis for press freedom and investigative journalism.
• Article 19(2): It contains reasonable restrictions that can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression.

Judicial and Committee Precedents

• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017): Declared privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution.
  • Restrictions on privacy must satisfy constitutional standards, including legality, legitimate state purpose and proportionality.
• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) — Auto Shankar Case: The Supreme Court declared that the media could publish material that is in the public record, including court documents, without the consent of the individual, subject to established exceptions.
  • However, publishing private details beyond public records could violate the right to privacy.
• Group of Experts on Privacy (2012), chaired by Justice A. P. Shah was constituted under the Planning Commission.
  • The report recommended that any legislation on privacy should not dilute or circumscribe the RTI Act. It emphasised that transparency and privacy must be complementary to each other.

Way Ahead

• Address inaccurate reporting through proportionate legal remedies rather than blanket requirements that obstruct publication before verification and disclosure.
• Provide narrowly defined exemptions for bona fide journalism undertaken in the public interest, subject to safeguards against privacy violations.
• Establish criteria to protect legitimate reporting on corruption, public officials and corporate wrongdoing while preventing unnecessary disclosure of personal data.

Source: TH