On Wednesday, March 19, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu introduced significant discourse on the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) within the media landscape, emphasizing that while AI has transformed many sectors, it cannot replace "journalism based on human values." Her remarks come amid the rollout of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which seeks to bolster the right to privacy, a sentiment echoed in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment of 2017.
The DPDP Act, poised to come into effect soon, embodies a progressive approach to legislative drafting by incorporating gender-inclusive language. For instance, Section 7 stipulates that a Data Fiduciary may process personal data of a Data Principal if 'she' has voluntarily provided 'her' data without indicating non-consent. This is a notable milestone toward gender equality, supported by the United Nations, which asserts that such language is crucial in preventing gender bias.
However, the Act has raised eyebrows among privacy advocates and media organizations for allegedly weakening the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Under the current RTI framework, personal information can be disclosed if it serves the public interest, according to Section 8(1)(j). In contrast, the DPDP Act, specifically Section 44(3), broadens the exemption, shielding any personal information from disclosure. This shift poses significant risks: it not only limits public access to potentially vital information but also removes the discretion of Public Information Officers to release information where larger public interest might justify it.
Further concerns arise from the DPDP Act's treatment of journalistic activities. Despite its intent to protect personal data, it does not explicitly exempt journalism from the stringent requirements established for data processing. This could hinder investigative reporting since media organizations would be classified as Data Fiduciaries, necessitating explicit consent from individuals before processing any digital personal data. Quoting fears from these potential restrictions, experts suggest that the hefty fines, ranging from Rs 50 crore to Rs 250 crore, may deter journalists from exposing wrongdoings.
Currently, Section 17(2)(b) of the DPDP Act provides exemptions for research and archiving but fails to recognize journalism as a legitimate purpose for processing personal data. This omission raises alarming concerns about press freedom, as many countries, including those in the European Union, have specific provisions allowing exemptions for journalistic activities under their data protection regulations. For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) allows member states to enact rules that exempt news reporting from compliance obligations.
The Editors Guild of India has been vocal about these issues, urging the Central Government to issue a notification under Section 17(5) of the DPDP Act to beget exemptions for media organizations from certain compliance obligations, particularly those that could obstruct investigative journalism. However, if such notifications were to be issued, they would be temporary, essentially leaving press freedom in a precarious position—a persistent sword hanging over it.
To ensure journalism is adequately protected under the new data regime, stakeholders are advocating for a more permanent solution. This could involve amending Rule 15 of the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to expressly exempt journalism from specific consent requirements associated with data processing. To implement this, Parliament would need to revise Section 17(2)(b) of the DPDP Act, ensuring that the law allows for processing necessary personal data for journalistic purposes, provided this aligns with the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct.
The Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2022, include critical safeguards for privacy protection, asserting that the press should protect individual privacy unless there is a compelling public interest to disclose such information. This dual approach may pave the way for balancing individual rights to privacy against the essential public interest served by journalism.
To date, the dialogue around the proposed Digital Personal Data Protection regime has not garnered the extensive public attention it warrants. Should these concerns remain unaddressed, there is a tangible risk that the initial push toward privacy protection will unintentionally suppress press freedom, dilute citizens' rights to information, and ultimately undermine the democratic fabric of the nation. This unintended consequence is not aligned with the original intentions of Parliament.
In light of these developments, it’s essential for lawmakers, civil society, and the media to engage in proactive discussions to ensure that while personal data is protected, the fundamental tenets of press freedom are not compromised. The journey ahead will require vigilance, responsibility, and an unwavering commitment to uphold the values that journalism represents in a democratic society.
