NEW DELHI, October 27 (Aalimi Nation) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a petition by the Digital News Publishers Association challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which the petitioners say threatens independent reporting. The notice covers the petition and an accompanying application for a stay, and the matter is due to return on November 17.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the plea. The Chief Justice said the petitioners were well placed to suggest safeguards to the Union government, and that a balance must be struck between citizens' rights and media rights. No ruling on the stay has been reported so far.
The association represents the digital arms of 21 news organisations. An independent investigative journalist based in Delhi, Yukta Mudgal, is also a petitioner. The plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on October 6, runs to 698 pages. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan argued for the petitioners.
What is being challenged
The petition seeks to have Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the Act declared unconstitutional, along with Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. The provisions are due to take effect from May 2027.
The petitioners' main arguments, as set out in their filing, are:
The Act has no specific exemption for journalism, although earlier drafts in 2018, 2019 and 2021 had one.
Requirements of notice, prior consent and erasure would hamper routine reporting, especially investigations. Telling the subject of an investigation about it, they argue, could allow evidence to be destroyed or witnesses intimidated.
Powers to demand information from organisations, without judicial oversight or tests of necessity and proportionality, could expose confidential sources.
The power to block public access to information is too broad.
The Data Protection Board has adjudicatory powers, yet its members are chosen by the executive and no judicial member is required.
The petitioners also challenge Section 44(3), which amends the Right to Information Act and, they say, creates a blanket bar on disclosing personal information by removing an earlier public-interest balance.
Arguments in court
Divan told the bench that the provisions "will shut down the newsroom" and warned of "a regime of pre-censorship." The petition calls the information-demand power "nakedly unguided".
The government's position
No government response to the petition has been reported. The association sent a representation to the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and of Electronics and Information Technology on August 10 and met ministry officials on August 25. Media representatives say they received verbal assurances on press freedom but no written carve-out.
The court is expected to take up the matter again on November 17, when the Union government's stand on the petition and the stay application is likely to become clearer.
