NEW DELHI: Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology and Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw said on Wednesday that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act does not infringe press freedom, asserting that the freedom of journalists is guaranteed by the Constitution and remains fully available.
"The journalistic freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. That freedom is absolutely available. There is not even an intention to affect the journalistic freedom," Vaishnaw told reporters in New Delhi. He added that the privacy law fully maintains the journalistic freedom that the Constitution guarantees.
Vaishnaw was responding to questions about a legal challenge to the law brought by news publishers. A day earlier, the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents 21 news publishers from across the media spectrum, had moved the Supreme Court against provisions of the DPDP Act and its rules. The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response and has scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 17.
The publishers have argued that the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activity in the law could impede investigative reporting and threaten press freedom. According to the petitioners, requirements relating to notice, consent and the deletion of personal data could make it difficult for journalists to report on matters of public interest, particularly when investigating alleged wrongdoing.
They have also raised concerns about the confidentiality of journalistic sources.
Vaishnaw rejected that reading of the law. He said the legislation was intended to protect personal data without impinging on media freedom, and he drew a distinction between the misuse of private information and its legitimate use in journalism. In his remarks, he maintained that a constitutional guarantee of press freedom could not be overridden by data-protection legislation.
Alongside the rebuttal came an offer of engagement. Vaishnaw invited editors and media professionals to meet the government for a detailed discussion of their concerns. "I am inviting all editors, media persons to come and have a clear, open dialogue with us. We will be very happy to explain, and if there is any doubt, we are happy to take on record any suggestion and act if there is a need to," he said.
He told reporters to pass on the invitation to their editors and said he would like to meet them in a properly scheduled meeting.
Sources indicated that the government would be open to amending the law to explicitly safeguard journalistic activity. That signal matters because it suggests the dispute may not have to be settled only in court. If the government moves an amendment, it could write a clear protection for journalism into the statute itself, addressing the publishers' central complaint that the law, as it stands, contains no such exemption.
Vaishnaw also set out the law's origins. He said the DPDP Act followed a Supreme Court judgment that recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right. He was referring to the court's 2017 judgment in the Justice K. S. Puttaswamy case, which held privacy to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Parliament, he said, had in effect converted that judgment into law.
The minister said the legislation had been framed after more than a year of consultations involving newspapers, television channels, media representatives, the information technology industry and other stakeholders. During that process, he said, the government had clearly explained that the provisions of the DPDP Act nowhere infringe upon the freedom of the press, journalism and freedom of media.
All media were part of the consultation, he said, and the provisions were explained in detail at the time.
Press freedom had also been raised at the very start of the legislative process, Vaishnaw noted. He recalled that one of the first questions asked in the Joint Parliamentary Committee that examined the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, the predecessor of the current law, was what would happen to the freedom of the press. The concern, in other words, is not new, and the government says it has been considered at each stage of drafting.
The publishers' challenge, however, argues that consideration has not translated into protection. Their case is that a law built around consent and data deletion sits uneasily with journalism that often depends on publishing personal information in the public interest, and on protecting the identity of sources who speak at personal risk.
For investigative reporters, the fear is that a subject of an investigation could use data-protection provisions to demand deletion of material, or that the machinery of notices and consent could slow down or chill reporting on powerful individuals and institutions.
That tension is at the heart of the wider debate over privacy law around the world: how to give individuals control over their personal data without handing a veto to people who would rather their affairs stayed out of public view. News organisations argue that journalism needs breathing room because it serves the public's right to know.
Governments and privacy advocates argue that individuals, including public figures in their private lives, deserve protection against the misuse of their information. The DPDP Act attempts to strike that balance, but the publishers say the balance is wrong where journalism is concerned.
What happens next will unfold on two tracks. In court, the Centre will have to file its response ahead of the November 17 hearing, setting out its legal defence of the Act and its rules. Outside court, the promised dialogue with editors will test whether the government is willing to move from reassurance to a concrete change in the law.
Editors are likely to press for a clear, written exemption for journalistic activity, rather than relying on general constitutional assurances.
For ordinary readers, the outcome will shape how much of what journalists uncover can be published, and how quickly. If the law is amended to protect journalism explicitly, newsrooms would have firmer ground to stand on when reporting on matters of public interest. If the challenge succeeds in court, parts of the law or its rules could be read down or struck down.
If neither happens, the argument over whether the Act chills reporting is likely to continue, story by story, as newsrooms test where the line now lies.
For now, the government's message is that there is no conflict to resolve. Vaishnaw's position is that press freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, that the privacy law maintains it fully, and that there is no intention to affect journalistic practice. The publishers' position is that a guarantee needs to be visible in the statute itself. The coming weeks, with a court hearing and a promised meeting with editors, will show whether those two positions can be brought together.
(Reporting based on The Hindu BusinessLine, The Times of India, Business Standard, The New Indian Express and The Print.)