₹250-crore fines, source exposure, erasure powers: Why India’s biggest news publishers are fighting the DPDP Act

The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition filed by a group of Indian legacy media companies challenging key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the DPDP Rules, 2025. The petitioners contend that enforcing the legislation against media organizations will severely hamper investigative journalism, compromise confidential sources, and virtually “close down newsrooms” across the country.

The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) -- representing the digital arms of 22 major news publishers -- alongside independent Delhi-based journalist Yukta Mudgal.

Severe risk to investigative reporting

During the hearing, counsel representing the media organizations cautioned the apex court that subjecting newsgathering to the strict requirements of the DPDP Act would leave journalists at the mercy of the very individuals they seek to investigate.

Under the statutory framework, publishers face onerous obligations requiring advance notice and explicit consent from "data principals" prior to collecting or processing personal data.

"If journalists are legally required to issue notice and obtain consent from suspects prior to publishing an investigative report, corruption investigations would be rendered completely ineffective, enabling subjects to destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses," the petition stated.

The publishers further argued that provisions authorizing data subjects to withdraw consent and compel the erasure of personal data under Section 12 pose an existential threat to historical news archives, public records, and ongoing investigative reporting.

Key statutory provisions challenged

The writ petition assails several specific sections of the DPDP Act and the accompanying 2025 Rules as unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary:

* Omission of Journalistic Exemptions (Sections 7 & 17): While Section 7 identifies "certain legitimate uses" (such as medical emergencies or State functions) and Section 17 provides exemptions for state agencies, research, and statistical purposes, no carve-out is provided for bona fide journalistic or public-interest reporting.

* Dilution of the RTI Act (Section 44(3)): The Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, introducing an absolute bar on disclosing "personal information" from public offices and dismantling two decades of judicial jurisprudence that balanced individual privacy against the public's right to know.

* Compelled source disclosure & executive surveillance (Section 36): Section 36 read with Rule 23 grants unbridled powers to the central government to demand "any information" from data fiduciaries without judicial oversight, exposing confidential journalistic sources and whistleblowers to executive scrutiny.

* Excessive executive control (Section 37): Empowers the Centre to issue sweeping directions to block public access to content on digital platforms in the "interest of the general public," creating a parallel censorship mechanism.

* Crippling monetary penalties (Schedule / Section 33): The statute prescribes draconian fines of up to ₹250 crore for personal data breaches. Publishers emphasized that penalties of this magnitude act as a severe disincentive for investigative reporting, driving pre-emptive self-censorship and threatening regional and digital news outlets with financial ruin.

* Deficiencies in adjudicatory bodies (Sections 18, 19 & 29): The petitioners questioned the lack of judicial membership on the Data Protection Board of India and challenged the designation of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) as the appellate authority, citing a complete lack of subject-matter expertise in privacy jurisprudence.

Besides Mathrubhumi, the DNPA represents news organizations, including The Indian Express, Dainik Bhaskar, Times Internet, HT Digital, NDTV, India Today, The Hindu Publishing (P) Ltd, ABP Pvt Ltd, Zee Media Corporation Ltd, Malayalam Manorama, Network 18, Lokmat, India TV, Business Standard, The New Indian Express, The Printers Mysore, Amar Ujala, Eenadu Television, Jagran New Media, Bennett Coleman and The Free Press Journal.

The petitioners noted that earlier iterations of India's privacy framework -- including the Justice BN Srikrishna Committee Report (2018) and the draft Personal Data Protection Bills of 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022 -- all explicitly recognized the necessity of a journalistic exemption to safeguard press freedom.

The petition highlighted that prior representations sent to MeitY in August 2026 seeking statutory clarification on journalistic exemptions yielded no formal relief or amendments.

The Supreme Court has tagged the DNPA’s writ petition with the lead matter, Venkatesh Nayak Union of India (WP(C) 177/2026), alongside related petitions filed by media bodies and journalists, including Newslaundry Media Pvt Ltd vs Union of India (WP(C) 655/2026) and DigiPub India News Foundation vs Union of India.