The Press Club of India (PCI) has criticised the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for notifying the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2023, without addressing concerns raised by journalists about the impact of the law on press freedom.
PCI said the Ministry’s manner of notifying the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules has deeply anguished it and argued that the law, in its current form, includes several ambiguous provisions that authorities could misuse against journalists.
Journalists Warn of Threat to Article 19(1)
In June 2025, the PCI and 22 other press organisations submitted a joint memorandum to MeitY. They warned that the DPDP Act’s broad definitions and wide scope could interfere with newsgathering, reporting, and the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1).
The memorandum also highlighted that journalists were not seeking to repeal the law but wanted safeguards so that authorities could not “weaponise” the Act against the media.
Meeting With MeitY and Follow-up Queries
Following the memorandum, MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan met representatives of the press bodies on July 28, 2025. On his request, journalists submitted a detailed set of 35 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on August 22, 2025. These questions listed real journalistic scenarios and sought clarity on how different sections of the Act, specifically Sections 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, 28, 33, 36 and 37, would apply.
Journalists also provided a copy of Article 85 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which explicitly grants exemptions for journalistic work. This was submitted after officials sought a reference model.
Concerns Over Ambiguity and RTI Dilution
Both the memorandum and the FAQs warned that authorities could use vague provisions in the DPDP Act to restrict reporting. Press bodies said this could hinder day-to-day journalism, including news gathering, data processing, and storing sensitive information for public-interest reporting.
They also raised concern about the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act through Section 44 of the DPDP Act, saying the change weakens journalists’ ability to access public records. According to the press bodies, the earlier RTI provision was a crucial tool for holding authorities accountable.
Efforts to Engage ‘Met With Obfuscation’
The PCI stated that journalists went “the extra yard” to engage constructively with the government, pointing out legal gaps and offering solutions. They said their efforts were meant to strengthen democracy and uphold freedom of expression, not oppose the idea of personal data protection.
However, they said these attempts “were met with a wall of obfuscation put up by the Executive”, and that no clear, legally binding assurance has been given to the media that the law will not be misused.
Advertisements
PCI Recalls History of Standing Up for Press Freedom
The PCI referenced its earlier fights against restrictive laws, including protests against censorship during the Emergency in 1975 and the agitation that led to the withdrawal of the Defamation Bill in 1988.
It said the current situation echoes past concerns that authorities used laws to target journalists.
Call for Clear Exemptions for Journalism
PCI said the DPDP Act vests excessive power in the executive, which it considers the “fundamental problem”. It urged the government to introduce specific exemptions for journalism and incorporate safeguards that prevent misuse of provisions related to data collection, consent, processing, and storage.
The statement ends with the hope that “better sense prevails” and that the government will amend and clarify the rules so that journalists can continue to function freely in a democracy.
Editors Guild of India Raises Parallel Concerns
The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has also reiterated the need for explicit protections for journalistic work under the DPDP Rules. In its statement, the Guild noted that MeitY had verbally assured media organisations in July 2025 that journalistic activities would not fall under the DPDP Act, yet no formal, legally binding clarification or amendment has followed. It added that the media industry had submitted 35 case-based questions seeking clarity on how the law applies to newsgathering and public-interest reporting, but the Ministry has not responded.
EGI emphasised that since 2023, it has consistently warned that the absence of journalistic exemptions, combined with ambiguous consent requirements and the amendment to the RTI Act under Section 44, could create a chilling effect on the press by widening the grounds for denying information as “personal data”. The Guild once again urged the government to issue a “clear and categorical clarification” that exempts bona fide journalism from the Act’s consent and processing obligations and stressed that the government must balance privacy protections with press freedom and the public’s right to know.
Read More:
Support our journalism:
For You
Source link
