1. The “Permission” Trap for Journalists
Imagine a journalist trying to expose a corrupt politician, but first having to ask that politician for “verifiable consent” to use their personal data. It sounds absurd, but that is exactly what the new law demands.
- No Exception for the Press: Unlike privacy laws in most major democracies, India’s new law does not carve out a special exception for journalism. It treats a reporter digging into a financial scam exactly the same as a tech company tracking your online shopping habits.
- Choking the Truth: By forcing reporters to get permission—and allowing corrupt officials to legally demand their data be “erased”—the law effectively handcuffs investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and everyday RTI activists.
2. A Dangerous Backdoor for the Government
The second major fear revolves around a hidden backdoor in Section 36 of the Act, which gives the state unprecedented surveillance power.
- A Blank Check for Data: This rule gives the Central Government the absolute authority to demand any information from a digital platform or newspaper at any time.
- No Judges, No Warnings: There is no judge overseeing this demand, no need for the government to prove why they need it, and no warning given to the person being investigated. Media houses are terrified this unchecked power will be weaponized to hunt down and expose the confidential sources who risk their lives to leak the truth.
Privacy is a fundamental human right, but so is a free press. A data protection law meant to stop corporations from selling your data should never become a weapon to stop journalists from exposing the truth.
Mains Practice Question
“Considering the Supreme Court’s mandate on proportionality in the Puttaswamy judgment, how can lawmakers amend the DPDP Act to balance the fundamental right to individual data privacy with the institutional necessity of protecting confidential journalistic sources?” (15 marks · 250 words)
Introduction: Briefly introduce the tension between the DPDP Act 2023’s strict privacy rules and the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
Body Part 1 (The Roadblocks): Explain how the lack of a “journalistic exemption” forces reporters to seek consent from the very subjects they are investigating. Highlight the dangers of Section 36, which grants the government unchecked power to demand data without a judge’s approval.
Body Part 2 (Finding the Balance): Use the Puttaswamy proportionality test to show why the current rules are too heavy-handed. Suggest adopting global best practices, like the EU’s GDPR, which specifically exempts journalistic work from these data hurdles.
Conclusion: Conclude that amending the Act to include a clear exemption for journalists and requiring judicial oversight for government data requests is the only way to protect both personal privacy and a strong democracy.
Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success
Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.