The NBDA has urged the Centre to amend the DPDP Act to exempt journalistic activities, warning that consent rules and data access powers could hamper reporting and expose confidential sources. Its demand comes amid a separate Supreme Court challenge by the DNPA, which has questioned the law's impact on journalism and access to information.News body warns data law could expose sources and hamper reportingNew Delhi,Nov 2, 2026 20:43 ISTThe News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) has written to Union Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw seeking a statutory exemption for journalistic activities under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, warning that the absence of one could hamper news gathering, expose confidential sources and encourage self-censorship.The letter comes after Vaishnaw assured media representatives that the government had no intention of restricting press freedom and suggested a meeting to discuss their concerns.
NBDA has now sought an early meeting with the minister and officials of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), arguing that the assurance must be reflected in the law through an amendment that provides legally enforceable protection before the Act's substantive provisions come into force.While welcoming the government's stated position, the association said the Act did not account for the circumstances in which journalists gather, verify, retain and publish information in the public interest. It said the consent framework could not accommodate reporting on people who did not want their conduct examined.“Seeking the subject's response as a matter of journalistic fairness must remain distinct from seeking permission to investigate or report,” NBDA said in its letter.
WHY THE DPDP ACT IS BEING CHALLENGEDThe NBDA's demand comes amid a separate legal challenge by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents 21 prominent news organisations. Last month, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to respond to the DNPA's petition challenging the DPDP Act and the DPDP Rules, 2025.The petition argues that the absence of a specific exemption for journalism could hamper news gathering and weaken citizens' right to information.
It also questions the consent requirements, the Centre's power to seek information from data fiduciaries and changes made to the Right to Information Act. Parliament passed the DPDP Act in August 2023 as India's first comprehensive law governing the protection of digital personal data.
It defines an entity processing personal data as a Data Fiduciary and the individual to whom the data relates as a Data Principal. A Data Fiduciary may process personal data with the individual's consent or for certain legitimate uses listed under Section 7.Section 7 permits processing for the purpose for which a Data Principal voluntarily provided the information, provided the individual has not indicated that they do not consent to its use.
Journalism, however, is not expressly included among these legitimate uses or the exemptions listed under Section 17.Section 17 specifies circumstances in which the law's data protection provisions do not apply. These include processing personal data to enforce a legal right or claim, and processing by courts, tribunals and legally authorised bodies while performing judicial, quasi-judicial, regulatory or supervisory functions.The publishers have pointed out that drafts of the legislation released in 2018, 2019 and 2021 included an exemption for journalism, but the provision was dropped from the enacted law.
They argue that its absence could mean a reporter writing about an individual would first have to obtain that person's consent.The DPDP Rules, notified on November 13, 2025, set out the framework for obtaining consent, issuing notices and reporting data breaches. Their implementation is scheduled in phases over 18 months.
The DNPA has also challenged Rule 23, framed under Section 36 of the Act, which allows the Centre, through an authorised person, to direct a Data Fiduciary or intermediary to provide information. It also allows the government to prevent the entity from disclosing that such a request has been made.The petition further challenges Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Earlier, personal information could be withheld if it had no connection with public activity or if its disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Even then, it could be disclosed if a larger public interest justified its release.The amended provision instead exempts all information relating to personal information.
The DNPA has questioned the implications of this change for access to information under the RTI Act.WHAT NBDA SAYS THE LAW COULD MEAN FOR NEWSROOMSIn its letter to Vaishnaw, NBDA said requiring journalists to obtain consent and issue notices to people they are investigating could alert them to an ongoing inquiry. In cases involving suspected corruption or financial misconduct, this could expose sources, allow evidence to be destroyed or prevent journalists from verifying information before publication.The association also warned that provisions allowing individuals to withdraw consent or seek erasure of their personal data could be used to demand the removal of accurate news reports and the records supporting them.
It said newsrooms needed to retain source material, recordings and research for follow-up reporting, verification, corrections and legal defence. The protection, it argued, must cover unpublished material and editorial archives as well as published reports and their republication.Another concern is that the Centre's information-gathering powers could be used to identify confidential sources or obtain details of unpublished investigations.“Explicit safeguards are necessary to prevent direct or indirect disclosure through the exercise of such powers,” the letter said.
NBDA warned that whistleblowers and other sources could be deterred from approaching journalists for fear of exposure or retaliation.The association also argued that existing provisions did not offer adequate protection. It said Section 3's exclusion for certain publicly available personal data was not a general exemption for information found online or obtained from third parties, and did not cover confidential documents, whistleblower disclosures or material independently gathered during investigations.
Section 7, it added, did not expressly provide a general basis for public-interest journalism.NBDA further cautioned that people unhappy with news reports could use data protection complaints to pressure journalists and news organisations, even when the reporting served the public interest. The possibility of legal proceedings and substantial financial penalties, it said, could encourage self-censorship and discourage reporting on government officials, corporate misconduct and corruption.The association described the penalties under the Act as harsh and excessive, with violations attracting fines of up to Rs 250 crore.
It also cited the recommendations of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee, which had proposed excluding journalistic purposes and activities from the data protection framework, and Article 85 of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which provides for exemptions relating to journalism.NBDA has sought an express and comprehensive exemption covering journalists, television and digital news organisations, and people processing information on their behalf.
Pending an amendment, it has asked the government to clarify in writing what interim protection can lawfully be provided under the existing Act. It has stressed that such a clarification cannot replace a statutory amendment.The association has also asked to be included in consultations on the proposed exemption.- Ends