The petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) in the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, has important consequences for the country’s media operations. The DNPA, representing 21 media organisations, has told the Court that the restrictive law would impinge on reporting and publication of news because it does not exclude legitimate journalistic activity from its purview. While earlier versions of the Act had exempted journalism from the “prior consent, compelled erasure, and verifiable consent” provisions, the final version makes compliance mandatory. This would demand obligations from the media that apply to commercial data processing. Compliance has been mandated on the grounds of the right to privacy. This means news reports about individuals, especially adversarial reports, could be considered a violation of that person’s privacy, necessitating their consent before publishing the reports.

The petitioners told the Court that if they are left to the mercy of the data principal (the individual to whom the personal data relates), it will lead to the closure of newsrooms. Many media reports about corruption, misconduct, and irregularities in the government and other sectors are based on data collected without the knowledge of the persons involved in such activities. If prior intimation and consent are made mandatory under the new regime, such reportage would become impossible. The provision would also lead to the destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses and whistle-blowers, and amount to pre-censorship. Even routine reporting of events would carry risks. The lawyer representing the DNPA, Madhavi Divan, explained this by asking the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant: “How can we ask for your permission before reporting on you?”

Protecting individual privacy and safeguarding against the potential misuse of personal information are important. But a law intended to protect privacy should not be invoked to prevent the scrutiny of actions by people in public life. Privacy concerns should not come at the expense of the greater public interest. The contentious provisions of the law violate the right to free speech and the right to information, and weaken the ability of the media to act as a check on power. External access to newsroom records can have serious implications for media operations and their right to constitutional protection. The top court should examine this chilling effect on journalism. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw’s statement that the government would hold talks with editors on the matter is welcome. (Source: DH)