“This will close down newsrooms”: Why are digital wings of India's biggest media houses challenging government's DPDP Act in Supreme Court

THE DIGITAL NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION (DNPA) on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, filed a writ petition challenging the regulations of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) , 2023, as concerns over constraining freedom of the press and newsrooms in India loom large. 

The DNPA has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, and challenges the Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act as unconstitutional, according to legal news outlet Bar and Bench. 

The DPDP Act was enacted by the Indian Parliament in August 2023, and has been a major point of criticism among civil society organizations, digital and human rights activists and other notable scholars of media, particularly for the concerns regarding free speech, institutional accountability, and punitive action. 

See Also: “Decisions were unanimously passed”: Election Commission submits affidavit to the Supreme Court; states no irregularities in SIR-related decisions

With this petition by DNPA, it is for the first time since DPDP was enacted that the major legacy media organizations in India have also voiced their criticisms regarding the same. 

Why are the media organizations filing petitions against the DPDP Act?

Digital wings of 21 major news organizations in the country constitute the DNPA. These include the legacy media organizations such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, Times Group, Zee, NDTV, Network 18, among others. Along with the DNPA, Yukta Mudgal — an independent investigative journalist in New Delhi — has also filed a petition regarding the same. 

The filed petitions were heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan said that the provisions of the DPDP seek to shut down the newsrooms and their work. Advocate Divan said, “This is the first comprehensive petition by ‘legacy media’. This will change the whole concept of news. News has to be new. This will close down the newsroom. What’s the point if I have to ask for permission and consent,” reported Live Law. 

Adding onto this, senior advocate Divan also stated that the provisions of the DPDP act seek to usher in a “regime of pre-censorship” of news. “We have to ask someone’s permission to report on them. How can that be? What will be the news then?” said Divan before the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. 

What does the petition against the DPDP seek to put forward?  

The petitioners argue that those engaged in journalistic activities — publishers, editors, reporters and correspondents — would require prior consent before engaging in their work. This, they believe, completely erases the basic idea of journalism and the functioning of the press. 

Furthermore, the act seeks to completely do away with the plight of investigative journalism. Investigative reports mostly revolve around uncovering personal information and data which impacts the public. This includes cases of corruption, financial irregularities, misconduct, among others. However, with the DPDP Act in practice, the media organizations contend, journalists would require prior consent to investigate a particular incident or individual. This does away with the entire principle of investigative journalism or even the role of media in general.

The DNPA’s petition also notes that the earlier versions of this proposed legislation had exemptions for journalistic engagements. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, had an exception under Section 47. Similarly, such exemptions were also granted in the legislation’s 2019 and 2021 amendments. 

See Also: “If Law and Order is Not Your Domain, Resign Now”: Congress Kerala Under Fire for Asking CJI Surya Kant to Resign; Supreme Court Bar Association Rebukes Party's Social Media Post

However, the 2022 draft DPDP bill introduced certain provisions that can curtail, instead of exempting journalistic activities. 

The filed petition, thus, puts forward this issue of potential restrictions to the constitutional right of free speech and expression, and subsequently the fundamental work of journalists and media houses. 

Additionally, the petition challenges Section 17(2) of the act. They point that the legal provisions treat “journalism” differently, as activities such as that of research, archiving, and statistical processing are provided exemptions. 

Concerns over Central Government’s media overreach 

The petitioners have flagged concerns that the Act provides greater power to the Central Government that is detrimental to journalistic activities. They contend that such powers could be used to identify and target “confidential sources” and discourage the role of “whistleblowers” in India’s democracy. Adding to this, is Section 37(1) which empowers the Central Government to restrict public access to specific information, based on its discretion. 

This provision is harmful, the petitioners claim, as it seeks to block information access and could also be used to restrict the broadcasting of news. 

Furthermore, a major concern remains over the functioning of the Data protection board. The petition flags that the Data Protection Board exercises the power to impose penalties and inquire into personal data violations. However, the head of this body, i.e. its Chairperson and its members are chosen by the executive — thereby leaving a scope for the government’s involvement. Alongside, there is no legal provision for the inclusion of a judicial member. 

How does the DPDP Act amend the RTI Act in the country? 

One of the most controversial portions of the DPDP Act was Section 44(3), which seeks to replace clause (j) of Section 8(1) in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI).

The DNPA’s petition, along with that of the other petitioners also point towards this provision. The petitions argue that this amendment provides a room for restricting the disclosure of personal information, irrespective of whether it concerns public interest, government officials or the functioning of institutions. 

Under the earlier provision of the RTI Act, disclosure of information could be declined on the grounds that it had no relationship to any public interest or activity, thereby maintaining a balance between one’s right to privacy and the fundamental right to information by the citizens. 

(Edited by Harsh Pandey)

[OG/AR/HP]

Suggested Reading: