Personal Data Protection Law Impinges On Press Freedom, Argue Media Outlets In SC; Court Seeks Centre's Response

AT A GLANCE

• The Supreme Court to hear matter again on November 17 after it sought Centre's response to the objections raised by the digital news publishers.

• Advocate Madhavi Divan representing the petitioners termed the conditions set by the government to gather news unworkable

• The petition also raised concerns over the Centre's overreaching powers to extradite information under the DPDP Act

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response of the Centre on a petition challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and the DPDP Rules on the grounds that they allegedly infringe press freedom and the right to information.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the notice after hearing senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA).

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17 along with pending ones.

The plea sought striking down several provisions of the data protection law and its accompanying rules as unconstitutional, saying that the absence of an exemption for journalistic activities could seriously impede news reporting, undermine investigative journalism and compromise the confidentiality of sources.

During the hearing, Divan described the petition as perhaps the first comprehensive challenge by what she termed the "legacy media", distinguishing traditional news organisations from citizen journalists.

"This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media," she said.

The senior lawyer urged the bench to issue notice on the application seeking an interim stay of the challenged provisions.

Divan said that the law's consent requirements could make routine news gathering and reporting unworkable, particularly when journalists report on matters involving individuals who may not consent to the use of their personal data.

"If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported?" she asked.

The senior lawyer stressed that the requirements could have serious implications for television journalism and time-sensitive reporting.

"On television, it is live. Otherwise, it has to be new," she said, adding that provisions could effectively shut down newsrooms.

"What is the point if I have to ask for permission and consent," she asked.

The association has also challenged the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, alleging that the change restricts access to information relating to public officials and alters the scope of information available for public scrutiny.

"Section 8(1)(j), the deletion, is changing the whole concept of news," Divan submitted.

The petition also raised concerns over the Centre's powers to requisition information under the DPDP Act, saying that the provisions could have far-reaching consequences for the functioning of news organisations and their ability to report on matters of public interest. 

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)