The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

DNPA, an organisation comprising the digital wings of 21 major news organisations such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, Times Group, Zee, NDTV, Network 18, etc., has contended that the provisions adversely affect press freedom.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to declare Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act unconstitutional. It also challenges Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025. Yukta Mudgal, an independent investigative journalist based in New Delhi, is also a petitioner.

"The provisions will shut down the newsroom," Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, for the petitioners,submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

"This is the first comprehensive petition by 'legacy media'. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media. This will change the whole concept of news. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal on whether he or she will give consent, the concept of news will be gone... News has to be new. It will close down the newsroom. What's the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?" Divan submitted.

The CJI said that the petitioners are in a position to suggest safeguards to the Union. "You are the domain experts. You are the best person to suggest the Union and us how you will ensure there's no misuse".

The senior counsel replied that the organisation had submitted a representation to the Centre after the petition was filed. The petition states that the DNPA submitted a detailed representation to the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and Information Technology on August 10, 2026, raising concerns regarding the enforcement of the DPDP Act and Rules. A meeting was subsequently held on August 25, 2026, between DNPA representatives and officials of the Ministry.

The CJI said that a balance has to be struck between the rights of the citizens and those of the media.

"This Act, when your lordships will see it, was not meant for journalism at all. The earlier avatars excluded us, we don't know why this has happened. It was not meant for us. Newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. This will set in a regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask someone's permission to report on them! How can that be? What will be news then? We will face the consequences if there is something wrong, but it cannot be frozen before it is published. We are regulated in any case," Divan submitted.

The bench issued notice on the petition as well as the application for stay, returnable on November 17. Divan informed the bench that there are other pending petitions which challenge the amendment to the RTI Act, however, this was the first comprehensive challenge on the ground of impact on journalism.

Details of the petition

The petitioners flag that the DPDP Act does not provide a specific exemption for journalistic activities.

The petitioners contend that publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents are subjected to requirements concerning notice, prior consent and erasure of personal data that are incompatible with the ordinary functioning of the press.

They argue that investigative journalism frequently involves uncovering personal information that has a bearing on public affairs, including corruption and misconduct in public office. Requiring journalists to obtain consent from the very individuals whose conduct they seek to investigate could frustrate such reporting, the petition states.

The petition also points out that earlier versions of the proposed data protection legislation expressly provided exemptions for journalistic purposes.

The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, provided such an exemption under Section 47. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, and the subsequent Data Protection Bill, 2021, also contained provisions exempting journalistic activities.

However, the petition states that the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, did not retain a specific exemption for journalism and instead contemplated exemptions to be notified by the Central Government.

According to the petitioners, the exclusion of a specific journalistic exemption in the enacted legislation leaves news publishers and journalists exposed to restrictions that could undermine their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.

They further contend that the classification under Section 17(2) is arbitrary because certain activities, including research, archiving and statistical processing, receive exemptions, while journalism serving the public interest does not.

The petition also argues that the law treats journalists differently from the State, which has exemptions for certain processing activities undertaken for enforcing criminal laws.

Government's powers may expose sources

The petition also challenges Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules.

The petitioners contend that these provisions confer broad powers on the Central Government to require information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries without adequate safeguards, including judicial oversight, a requirement of necessity or proportionality, or notice to the affected individual.

They argue that the powers could be used to identify and target confidential journalistic sources, thereby discouraging whistleblowers from sharing information concerning matters of public importance.

The petition further challenges Section 37(1), which empowers the Central Government to restrict public access to information in specified circumstances.

According to the petitioners, the power to block access to information in the interests of the general public is excessively broad and could be used to restrict the dissemination of news.

Challenge to Data Protection Board

The petitioners have also questioned the constitution and powers of the Data Protection Board of India under Sections 18, 19 and 27 of the DPDP Act.

They contend that the Board exercises adjudicatory powers involving fundamental rights, including the power to inquire into personal data breaches and violations of statutory obligations and impose penalties.

However, the Chairperson and members are selected by the executive, and the law does not require the inclusion of a judicial member.

The petitioners argue that conferring adjudicatory powers on an executive body without adequate institutional safeguards raises constitutional concerns.

DPDP Act's amendment to RTI Act challenged

The petitioners have separately challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which substitutes clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

They contend that the amendment creates a blanket restriction on the disclosure of personal information, irrespective of whether the information relates to public activity, concerns a public official acting in an official capacity or is justified by larger public interest.

Under the earlier provision, the disclosure of personal information could be refused where it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, subject to the statutory framework and applicable exceptions.

The petitioners argue that the earlier provision maintained a balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know by allowing the disclosure of personal information where larger public interest justified it.

The petitioners have referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India(Electoral Bonds case) in support of their contention that the fundamental right to know cannot be sacrificed at the altar of privacy.

In February, the Supreme Court had referred the petitions challenging the DPDP Act amendment to the RTI Act to a 3-judge bench.

The petition has been filed through ADP Law Offices and Adv Anuj Tiwari.