# Supreme Court issues notice on news publishers' challenge to the data protection law

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-10-28/dpdp-act-news-publishers-sc-notice/
Date: 28 October 2026 (2026-10-28)
Source: Indian Express, Page 1
UPSC papers: GS2, GS3
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether India's data protection law, which has no exemption for journalism, unreasonably restricts the press and the right to information.

On 27 October 2026 a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre on a petition by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) and independent journalist Yukta Mudgal challenging parts of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025. Notice was issued on both the writ petition, filed under Article 32, and the application for a stay, and the matter was made returnable on 17 November. The DNPA represents the digital arms of 21 news organisations, including The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, the Times Group, Zee, NDTV and Network 18. "Newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. This will set in a regime of pre-censorship," Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan argued.

The petition targets Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the Act and Rules 16, 17 and 23. Its central complaint is that the Act has no specific exemption for journalism, so reporters processing personal data would need the consent of the very people they investigate. It says Section 17(2) is arbitrary because it exempts research, archiving and statistical processing but not public-interest journalism. It argues that Section 36 read with Rule 23 lets the Centre call for information without judicial oversight, which could expose journalists' sources; that Section 37(1) allows overbroad blocking; that the Data Protection Board, which adjudicates and imposes penalties under Sections 18, 19 and 27, is chosen by the executive and need not have a judicial member; and that Section 44(3), which rewrites Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, imposes a blanket bar on disclosing personal information.

The petition traces the history of the law: the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 had a journalistic exemption (in its Section 47), as did the 2019 Bill and the Data Protection Bill, 2021, but the 2022 draft dropped it in favour of exemptions the Centre could notify. The DNPA says it raised its concerns with the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and of Electronics and IT in August 2026. The Act's provisions are being brought into force in phases, with the remaining duties of data fiduciaries due from 13 May 2027. Separate petitions against the RTI amendment are already pending; in February 2026 the Court referred them to a larger bench. The Act came after the Supreme Court's 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which held privacy to be a fundamental right; the Centre is yet to file its reply in this case.

## Prelims facts

- On 27 October 2026 the Supreme Court issued notice on the Digital News Publishers Association's challenge to the DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, returnable on 17 November.
- The core grievance is the absence of a journalistic exemption; Section 17(2) exempts research, archiving and statistical processing but not journalism.
- Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to bar disclosure of personal information.
- The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 had a journalistic exemption in Section 47; the 2022 draft dropped it.
- In Puttaswamy (24 August 2017) the Supreme Court held privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III.

## Quick recall

- **Who challenged the DPDP Act in the Supreme Court in October 2026?** The Digital News Publishers Association (digital arms of 21 news organisations) and journalist Yukta Mudgal.
- **On what date is the publishers' case returnable?** 17 November 2026.
- **Which section of the DPDP Act amends the RTI Act?** Section 44(3), which amends Section 8(1)(j).
- **Which DPDP Act section exempts research, archiving and statistical processing?** Section 17(2).
- **When did the DPDP Act receive Presidential assent?** 11 August 2023.
- **Which draft law had a journalistic exemption in its Section 47?** The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018.
- **When was privacy held to be a fundamental right?** 24 August 2017, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.
- **When are the remaining provisions of the DPDP Act due to come into force?** 13 May 2027.

## Prelims practice question

With reference to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, consider the following statements:
1. It contains a specific exemption for processing of personal data for journalistic purposes.
2. It amends the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. It provides for a Data Protection Board to adjudicate breaches.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. 1 is wrong: the absence of a journalistic exemption is exactly what news publishers challenged in October 2026 (earlier drafts of 2018, 2019 and 2021 had one). 2 is correct: Section 44(3) amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 3 is correct: the Data Protection Board under Section 18 adjudicates and imposes penalties.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Mains 2017, GS2: Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q125-scope-fundamental-rights-light-latest-judgement-supreme/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Show how Puttaswamy's privacy right now interacts with free speech through the DPDP Act and its challenge.
- UPSC Mains 2018, GS4: The Right to Information Act is not all about citizens' empowerment alone, it essentially redefines the concept of accountability. Discuss. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q133-right-information-act-not-all-about-citizens/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Use the DPDP Act's RTI amendment to show how accountability through RTI can be eroded by new privacy rules.
- UPSC Prelims 2024, Prelims: Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy? (a) Article 15 (b) Article 16 (c) Article 19 (d) Article 21 (https://upsc.help/pyq/q129-under-following-articles-constitution-india-has-supreme/)

## Mains practice question

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 seeks to protect privacy but has been challenged as a threat to press freedom and the right to information. Critically examine. (250 words)

### Model answer

The DPDP Act, 2023 gives effect to the right to privacy recognised in Puttaswamy (2017). On 27 October 2026 the Supreme Court issued notice on a challenge by the Digital News Publishers Association, which says the law would chill journalism.

## Privacy gains
- Consent-based processing, duties on data fiduciaries and penalties for breaches.
- A Data Protection Board to adjudicate complaints.
- Phased rollout, with remaining duties of data fiduciaries due from 13 May 2027.

## Concerns for press freedom
- **No journalistic exemption:** the 2018, 2019 and 2021 Bills had one; the 2022 draft dropped it. Reporters may need consent from those they investigate.
- **Arbitrary classification:** Section 17(2) exempts research, archiving and statistics but not journalism (Article 14).
- **Source protection:** Section 36 with Rule 23 lets the Centre call for information without judicial oversight.
- **Blocking:** Section 37(1) allows broad restriction of public access.
- **Independence:** the Board is executive-selected with no required judicial member.

## Concerns for transparency
- Section 44(3) rewrites RTI Section 8(1)(j) into a blanket bar on personal information, removing the public-interest override; challenges are before a larger bench.
- Petitioners cite the electoral bonds judgment on the citizen's right to know.

## Arguments for the law
- Privacy is itself a fundamental right; the Act lets the Centre notify exemptions; careless use of personal data by media can also harm individuals.

## Way forward
- A narrowly drawn public-interest journalism exemption, as in earlier Bills.
- Judicial or independent oversight for Section 36 demands.
- Restore a public-interest test in RTI.

Privacy and a free press both flow from Part III; the law must balance, not subordinate, one to the other.

## The basics

## Why this matters

Data protection, privacy, press freedom and the right to information are four of the most examined rights themes in GS2. The challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 by India's major news publishers brings all four into one case, which the Supreme Court admitted on 27 October 2026.

## What the Act does

The Act regulates how 'data fiduciaries' (any entity that decides why and how personal data is processed) handle the personal data of 'data principals' (the people the data is about). The default rule is consent. Breaches are adjudicated by the Data Protection Board of India.

## Why journalists object

A newspaper investigation is, in legal terms, processing of personal data. Without an exemption, the subject of a story could refuse consent. The petitioners say this makes the law a regime of 'pre-censorship'.

## The RTI angle

Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 earlier allowed personal information to be withheld unless a larger public interest justified disclosure. The DPDP Act's Section 44(3) removes that balancing, so information about officials' conduct could be denied simply as 'personal'. Activists' challenges to this change are before a larger bench.

## The constitutional balance

Both sides invoke Part III. Privacy, recognised in Puttaswamy and the right to privacy, supports the law; freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to know support the challengers. The Court will have to decide whether the law balances these or lets one swallow the other.

## Sources

- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/newsrooms-will-shutdown-digital-wings-of-legacy-media-move-supreme-court-challenging-personal-data-protection-law-556103
- https://www.nextias.com/ca/headlines-of-the-day/28-10-2026/87479
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Personal_Data_Protection_Act,_2023