In short: The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on a petition by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which argues that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and its Rules threaten press freedom. It said it would not do so without hearing the government. The matter returns on 17 November.

What happened in court?

On Tuesday, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the DNPA's petition. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the association. After hearing her, the bench issued notice to the Centre and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on the association's application for an interim stay.

The Chief Justice made the Court's position plain. As reported by Bar & Bench, he said there would be no stay without hearing the other side, but that notice on the stay application was issued. The Hindu quotes him as saying the Court cannot pass ex parte orders of stay. The Court also allowed the DNPA to serve the Centre's standing counsel.

The case will be heard next on 17 November, along with pending petitions.

Who are the petitioners?

The DNPA represents 21 digital news publishers. Other members named include The Indian Express, Times Internet, The Hindu, India Today and Zee Media. The case is titled Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) & Anr v. Union of India & Anr.

What are the publishers arguing?

Their central complaint is that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 contain no specific exemption for journalism. According to the petition, this could leave journalists and publishers facing notice, consent and erasure obligations even in routine, public-interest reporting. The main grounds are:

  • Consent: Reporters might have to seek consent from the people they write about.
  • Erasure: Individuals can withdraw consent and seek erasure of their data. The publishers say this could force them to unpublish or heavily redact factual reports.
  • Source protection: The petition says the government's powers to seek information from organisations holding personal data could expose confidential sources and discourage whistleblowers.
  • Section 36 and Rule 23: The petition describes the Centre's power to requisition information under Section 36 of the Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the Rules, as lacking judicial oversight and any test of necessity or proportionality.
  • RTI amendment: The DNPA also challenges the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which deals with disclosure of personal information held by public authorities. It argues the change restricts access to information.
  • Constitutional grounds: The petition says the framework violates the freedom of speech and expression and the right to equality under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Ms Divan told the Court that earlier versions of the legislation excluded journalism.

What did the Court say about balance?

The Chief Justice observed that innocent citizens have rights too and that a balance must be struck. He invited the media organisations, as experts in the field, to suggest safeguards against misuse of personal data while protecting journalistic freedom. Ms Divan said the DNPA has already made a representation to the government and offered to assist the Court.

What does this mean legally?

Issuing notice only asks the government to respond. It is not a finding on the merits. Because there is no stay, the law and the Rules remain in force as they stand. According to a Reuters report cited by the Economic Times, most of the challenged provisions are scheduled to take effect from May 2027.

Who is affected, and what should readers do?

News publishers, editors and reporters are most directly affected. Citizens whose personal data features in news reports, and people who use the Right to Information Act, 2005, could also be affected by the outcome. Readers do not need to take any action now. Anyone who handles personal data professionally should watch the 17 November hearing and the Centre's response, since the final outcome could change how the law applies to journalism.

Frequently asked questions

Has the Supreme Court struck down or paused the DPDP Act?

No. The Court issued notice on the interim stay application but declined to grant a stay without hearing the Centre.

When is the next hearing?

The matter is listed for 17 November, along with pending petitions.

Why do the publishers say the law affects journalism?

They say the law has no specific exemption for journalistic activity. In their view, consent, erasure and information-requisition provisions could hamper investigative reporting and endanger confidential sources. The government's reply is awaited.

Sources

Not legal advice. This page explains the law in general terms. Rules, fees and limits change, and your facts matter. Check the official source or consult a qualified advocate before acting. Disclaimer