Digital news publishers told the Supreme Court that mandatory consent rules could cripple journalism. The challenge tests whether privacy protections can coexist with press freedom and the public's right to know.Image used for representational purposes onlyNewdelhi,Oct 27, 2026 16:04 ISTNewsrooms could shut down if journalists are required to seek permission before publishing personal information under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and its rules, the Digital News Publishers Association told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, news agency Press Trust of India reported.The association said the absence of an exemption for journalistic work could restrict news reporting, weaken investigative journalism and compromise the confidentiality of sources.
It has challenged several provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the accompanying rules as unconstitutional.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Union ministries of Law and Justice, and Electronics and Information Technology. The case will be heard on November 17 along with other pending matters.The Digital News Publishers Association represents 21 digital news publishers, including companies owned by the Ambani and Adani groups.
Its members include Network18, NDTV, The Indian Express, Times Internet, The Hindu, India Today, Zee Media, ABP Pvt Ltd, Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Amar Ujala and Eenadu Television Pvt Ltd. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the association, urged the bench to consider its application seeking an interim stay.
She said the lack of an exemption for journalistic activities could fundamentally change the way news is gathered and reported."This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists.
We are the traditional, conventional legacy media," Divan said, according to PTI. She argued that requiring journalists to obtain permission from people before publishing information about them could undermine the functioning of newsrooms.
She also raised concerns about the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, which deals with the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities."We have raised the argument concerning exemptions as well. Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission.
It is a complete regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask your permission if we report on you.
How can that ever be? What is news otherwise?
If we report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences," she said.Divan said earlier versions of the law had excluded journalism and questioned why the exemption was not retained. "When the court examines this Act in detail, it will find that it was not meant for journalism at all. In fact, the earlier versions excluded journalism.
We do not know why this has happened. Clearly, it was not meant for us," she said.The Supreme Court declined to grant an interim stay without hearing the government. "No stay without hearing the other side.
But notice on stay application issued," the Chief Justice said.The petition argues that the challenged provisions violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, freedom of speech and expression, the right to practise a profession, and the right to life and personal liberty. It has sought a declaration that several provisions are unconstitutional to the extent that they infringe fundamental rights.The association's main contention is that the law does not provide a specific exemption for journalistic activities, potentially subjecting publishers, editors and reporters to data protection requirements that are incompatible with the functioning of a free press.According to the petition, the Act and rules could restrict investigative reporting by requiring journalists and publishers to follow provisions relating to notice, consent, withdrawal of consent and deletion of personal data.
Journalists investigating corruption, misconduct or irregularities in public affairs may have to obtain and process personal information about the people whose conduct is under scrutiny, it said.The petition cited the Supreme Court's judgment in the Justice K S Puttaswamy case, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right. It argued that the data protection framework must also respect freedom of speech and expression and the public's right to know.A key part of the challenge concerns Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act on the disclosure of personal information.
The petition has sought a declaration that the substituted clause (g) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, brought into force through Section 44(3) of the data protection law, is unconstitutional.The association has also challenged Sections 36 and 37 of the Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the rules. According to the petition, Section 36 allows the Centre to seek information from organisations handling data and intermediaries without adequate safeguards relating to necessity, proportionality, judicial oversight or notice to affected people.The case will now return to the Supreme Court on November 17, when the bench will consider the challenge and the request for an interim stay after hearing the government's response.- Ends