The Press Club of India, along with 21 other media organisations, has submitted a joint memorandum to Union Minister for Electronics and Information and Broadcasting, Ashwini Vaishnaw, requesting that journalistic work be kept outside the scope of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
Backed by over 1,000 signatories—including journalists and photojournalists from across India—the memorandum raises concerns that the current provisions of the Act could undermine press freedom.
It warns that the law may allow excessive state interference in essential journalistic functions such as investigative reporting, safeguarding sources, and publishing information crucial to the public interest.
On behalf of the media community, Press Club of India president Gautam Lahiri and secretary general Neeraj Thakur formally handed over the memorandum to Dhirendra Ojha, Principal Director General of the Press Information Bureau.
In May 2025, the Press Club of India launched a signature campaign to build opposition to the contested provision in the DPDP Act. The joint memorandum submitted to the government marks the outcome of that effort, backed by a broad coalition of journalist bodies across the country, including the Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Mumbai Press Club, Press Club of Kolkata, Kerala Union of Working Journalists, and several others representing nearly every state and region.
DPDP Act not yet enforced, but contested
Speaking to BOOM, Lahiri said that they consulted legal experts and RTI activists before deciding to submit the memorandum. Based on those discussions, he said, there was a clear concern that once the DPDP Act is fully implemented, it could seriously compromise press freedom.
“This law, in its current form, poses a threat to freedom of expression, especially for working journalists,” Lahiri said. He added that the government must devise a mechanism to exempt bona fide journalists from its purview. “That is the basis of our appeal. We are urging the government to revisit these provisions,” he said.
He also pointed out that journalists were initially exempted in earlier discussions of the legislation. “Even the final Bill was passed with minimal discussion,” Lahiri said, explaining that the Lok Sabha cleared it right after the confidence vote, when most opposition members had walked out, and it passed by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha as well—without any serious debate on its provisions.
This lack of deliberation, Lahiri suggested, reflects the urgency with which the press must now seek clarity and protection under the law.
Although the law has been passed, its enforcement still depends on the notification of detailed rules by the government—a process currently underway.
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act was enacted on August 11, 2023, following its passage by the Lok Sabha on August 7 and the Rajya Sabha on August 9. However, the Act did not become fully operative immediately—it requires specific rules to be notified by the Central Government before its provisions take effect.
Drafting on these rules began in late 2024. By January 3, 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) officially published draft rules and opened them for public consultation, which was meant to close February 18, 2025 but was later extended till March 5, 2025.
These draft rules cover consent mechanisms, data breach reporting, data retention timelines, parental consent for minors, and the setup of the Data Protection Board of India, among other operational details.
The final rules are still pending. Industry groups—like telecom firms and trade associations—have requested more time to comply and have raised concerns over issues such as potential data localisation requirements that weren’t clearly addressed in the Act itself.
Why journalists are concerned about the DPDP Act
Journalists and media bodies fear that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, could restrict routine newsgathering and reporting. Their concerns are based on specific provisions in the law:
Broad definitions with no journalist exemptions: The Act defines terms like Data Principal, Data Fiduciary, and Personal Data in ways that apply to journalistic work. For instance, a person mentioned in a news article becomes a Data Principal, and the journalist becomes a Data Fiduciary, responsible for handling that data under strict rules. This means even quoting a person’s name or taking a photo could be treated as processing personal data—potentially leading to penalties.
Consent requirements for reporting: Sections 5 and 6 of the Act say that a Data Fiduciary must get “informed, clear, and unambiguous” consent before processing personal data. Journalists fear this would require them to get permission before publishing investigative or breaking news—such as during a riot, custodial death, or corruption scandal—which is neither practical nor in the public interest.
Risk of being labelled ‘Significant Data Fiduciary’: Under Section 10, the government can designate certain data handlers as Significant Data Fiduciaries, based on how much data they collect. Journalists worry that those working with large datasets—like electoral rolls or public welfare schemes—may fall under this category, facing added compliance and scrutiny.
Threat to source confidentiality: Sections 28 and 36 give the Data Protection Board and the Union Government wide powers to demand any information from journalists and media organisations. This could expose confidential sources or whistleblowers, which are critical to investigative journalism and have “grave consequences for press freedom”.
Dilution of the RTI Act: One of the key concerns is that the Act weakens the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which journalists often use to access public records. The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) removes the earlier safeguard that allowed disclosure of personal information if it served the larger public interest. This change could block access to crucial data—such as records on government schemes, public servants, or beneficiaries—that has historically helped expose corruption and systemic failures.
What journalists are demanding from the government
To protect press freedom, the memorandum submitted by 21 press bodies and over 1,000 journalists urges the government to make the following changes to the DPDP Act:
Clear exemptions for journalists: They want the law to clearly state that journalists and media organisations are not Data Fiduciaries when performing legitimate newsgathering and reporting in the public interest.
Remove ambiguity from the law: Journalists are asking for revisions to vague terms and definitions that currently leave them open to liability for doing their jobs—such as taking a photograph, quoting a source, or publishing a report on public figures.
Protect journalists from arbitrary classification: They demand that media professionals not be classified as Significant Data Fiduciaries, a label that could be misused to impose disproportionate obligations on the press.
Uphold the confidentiality of sources: The memorandum calls for journalists and media outlets to be excluded from the powers under Sections 28 and 36 that allow government agencies to access sensitive or confidential journalistic material.
Restore full RTI protections: Finally, they ask that the original version of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act be reinstated, so that journalists can continue accessing important public interest information without being blocked by broad privacy claims.
Thus, journalists have raised concerns that several provisions of the DPDP Act could infringe on their constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g), which protect freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to practise their profession.
