‘What is the point if the press has to ask for consent?’: News publishers tell SC that DPDP Act could create a pre-censorship regime

The Supreme Court of India has refused to stay the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023, without hearing the government’s side and has listed the matter for November 17, 2026. This was the first hearing of the Digital News Publishers Association’s (DNPA) challenge to the DPDP Act before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the DNPA, argued that certain provisions of the DPDP Act would enable a “complete regime of pre-censorship” if media organisations and journalists had to obtain prior consent from their sources or the subjects of their stories before publishing news reports. Under the DPDP Act, sources or subjects of news articles could be considered data principals, making them eligible to exercise rights such as correction and erasure.

DNPA members: The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) is an association of digital news publishers and media houses in India. Its members include traditional television broadcasters, such as NDTV, acquired by the Adani Group, and Network18, owned by Mukesh Ambani, as well as traditional print newspapers such as The Hindu, The Indian Express and Jagran Media. These organisations also have web-based publications. A full list of DNPA members, along with the names and designations of their representatives, appears at the end of this article.

Here is a lightly edited transcript of Advocate Madhavi Divan’s address to the Supreme Court, where she represented the news organisations’ body:

“This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. [But] we are the traditional, conventional legacy media. Would the Court consider issuing notice on the stay application? Some of these provisions are concerning… changing the whole concept of news.”

“The concept of news has to be considered. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported? … This will close down newsrooms. What is the point if I have to ask for permission and consent?” 

“When the Court examines this [DPDP] Act in detail, it will find that it was not meant for journalism at all. In fact, the earlier versions excluded journalism. We do not know why this has happened. Clearly, it was not meant for us.”

“We have raised the argument concerning exemptions as well. Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. It is a complete regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask your permission if we report on you. How can that ever be? What is news otherwise?

“If we [news organisations] report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences.”

“As far as we are concerned, we straddle different forms of media, whether print or broadcast. We are covered under the Cable Television framework, uplinking and downlinking regulations, IT Rules and the Press Council. We are regulated under all these frameworks.”

What did the Supreme Court say? Midway through Divan’s address, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said: “You are the domain experts. You are in this field. You are the best persons to suggest to the Union, as well as to us, how you will ensure that there is no misuse.”

Reuters first reported the DNPA’s petition, which was originally filed on October 6. Reuters said it had reviewed the DNPA’s 698-page confidential filing before the Supreme Court. Here is what the report revealed.

Consultations with the Indian government: Before filing the petition in the Supreme Court, the DNPA said it had consulted the Indian government. It told the Court that publishers had received “assurances” during an August meeting that the law would protect press freedom. However, despite these private assurances, the enacted law and the notified Rules do not contain specific exemptions from the contentious provisions.

The August letter attached to the petition reportedly read: “[The Indian government] has chosen to grant broad exemptions to the state, while failing to extend any corresponding ⁠protection to ​the press”. — DNPA petition.

The petition refers to provisions of the DPDP Act that exempt the government and its agencies from certain obligations imposed on data fiduciaries. These include obligations relating to data retention and data principals’ rights to correction and erasure of records held by the government. You can read more about these exemptions here.

What are the news publishers arguing? The DNPA argues that the DPDP Act does not provide a specific written exemption for journalism, unlike data protection laws in the European Union, Singapore and the United Kingdom. Reuters reported that it had reviewed the DNPA’s confidential filing. Some of the arguments outlined in the report are:

• Consent: Reuters reported that the DNPA argues that journalists would have to notify the subjects of investigations and seek their consent. According to Reuters, the petition says this “would allow that subject to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses”.
• Erasure: The DNPA argues that people can withdraw consent at any time and demand the erasure of their data, with no public-interest safeguard. According to Reuters, the association says this could force its members to unpublish factual reports or heavily redact them.
• Information demands: The filing reportedly argues that the government’s power to demand information could extend to “privileged communications” held by reporters or their sources. It also argues that this power could deter whistleblowers.
• Blocking and fines: According to Reuters, the DNPA objects to the Data Protection Board’s power to impose fines and the government’s power to block information in the “interests of the general public”.

The DNPA’s petition seeks the quashing of the contentious provisions that it says would affect investigative journalism and could reduce the media to a passive observer of events rather than a journalistic force that scrutinises and challenges them.

The petition states that the provisions “constitute pre-censorship which is anathema to any democracy worth its name”. Reuters reviewed the petition.

Previous pushback against the DPDP Act by media bodies

• August 2023: The Editors Guild of India (EGI) said the Bill lacked exemptions for journalism. It cited the Srikrishna Committee’s warning that consent-based grounds for processing personal data could mean that accounts “unfavourable to the data principal would simply not get published”.
• February 2024: The EGI asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for a class exemption for journalistic processing under Section 17(5). It argued that existing Press Council of India norms already set adequate standards. As MediaNama reported, Section 17(5) of the DPDP Act allows the government to exempt a data fiduciary or a class of data fiduciaries from any provision of the Act for a specified period through a notification, before the expiry of five years from the date of commencement of the Act.
• June 2025: The Press Club of India (PCI) and 22 other press bodies submitted a memorandum to MeitY. They said they were not seeking the repeal of the law but safeguards to protect press freedom.
• July 28 and August 22, 2025: MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan met representatives of press bodies. The bodies subsequently submitted 35 frequently asked questions (FAQs) and provided officials with a copy of Article 85 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a reference model.
• November 2025: The government notified the DPDP Rules. The PCI said its efforts “were met with a wall of obfuscation put up by the Executive”, as MediaNama reported. The EGI said that MeitY’s verbal assurances in July 2025 had not resulted in any binding clarification or amendment.

Before the DNPA challenged the DPDP Act, the Supreme Court was already considering a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the DPDP Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025. Those petitions raise broader issues than the DNPA’s challenge.

As MediaNama reported and Supreme Court Observer documented, the petitioners challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions include:

• Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC): A public interest litigation (PIL) filed through Senior Advocate Indira Jaising that questions the law’s distinction between public and private data.
• The Reporters’ Collective and Nitin Sethi: Represented by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), they challenge Section 36 of the DPDP Act and Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025.
• The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and Venkatesh Nayak: They have filed separate petitions that similarly challenge Section 36 of the DPDP Act and Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025.

These matters remain pending before the Supreme Court.

RTI Filed: We have filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with MeitY seeking records relating to consultations between the ministry and the DNPA on the DPDP Act and Rules. The application seeks records from January 1, 2025, to October 26, 2026, including meeting invitations, agendas, attendance records, minutes, briefing papers, letters, emails, file notings and other correspondence relating to the August 2026 consultation.

We will publish an update if we receive a response.

Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) members

1. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. (Anant Goenka, Executive Director)
2. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. (Anil Malhotra, Head of Public and Regulatory Affairs)
3. ABP Pvt. Ltd. (Dhruba Mukherjee, Chief Executive Officer)
4. India Today (Kalli Purie, Group Editorial Director – Broadcast & New Media)
5. Manorama Online, Malayala Manorama (Mariam Mammen Mathew, Chief Executive Officer)
6. Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Company (M. S. Mayura, Director)
7. The Hindu Publishing (P) Ltd. (Navaneeth LV, Chief Executive Officer)
8. Dainik Bhaskar (Pawan Agarwal, Deputy Managing Director)
9. Times Internet (Puneet Gupt, Chief Operating Officer)
10. HT Digital (Puneet Jain, Chief Executive Officer)
11. Network18 (Puneet Singhvi, Chief Strategy Officer)
12. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd. (Rishi Darda, Joint Managing Director and Editorial Director)
13. India TV (Ritu Dhawan, Managing Director)
14. Business Standard Private Ltd. (Shivendra Gupta, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer)
15. The New Indian Express (Sidharth Sonthalia, Executive Director)
16. The Printers Mysore (Sowbhagyalakshmi Kanekal Tilak, Director)
17. Amar Ujala (Tanmay Maheshwari, Managing Director)
18. Eenadu Television Pvt. Ltd. (Venkat I, Director)
19. NDTV (Rahul Kanwal, Chief Executive Officer and Editor-in-Chief)
20. Jagran New Media (Gaurav Arora, Chief Operating Officer)
21. Bennett Coleman (Vineet Jain, Managing Director)

Source: DNPA

Readers can track the case using Diary No. 45589-2026. The Supreme Court will hear the matter again on November 17, 2026.

Also Read: 

• Here’s How India’s Data Protection Bill Threatens Right To Information 
• INDIA Bloc Seeks Repeal of RTI Blocking Provision in DPDP Act 
• SC Questions “Public vs Private Data” in DPDP Act Case

The post ‘What is the point if the press has to ask for consent?’: News publishers tell SC that DPDP Act could create a pre-censorship regime appeared first on MEDIANAMA.