On Tuesday, 27 October, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre on a petition from 21 news publishers, including companies owned by Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani. The petitioners contend that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and its Rules will ‘maim journalism’.

Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the Digital News Publishers Association, put the problem plainly: “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?”

It is unusual to see India’s largest media houses, rarely natural allies in the fight for freedom of the press, going to court together. That they have done so should tell us how serious the problem is.

Start with the design. The Act asks anyone who processes personal data to obtain consent. Journalism, however, is a trade built on information that someone would rather keep hidden. No minister has ever consented to a story about his undeclared assets. No contractor has signed a form approving a report on a rigged tender.

Unlike the European Union’s GDPR, which carves out space for journalistic work, the Indian law offers no such exemption. A reporter who gathers and publishes information about a person risks being treated as a ‘data fiduciary’, answerable to a data protection board that is not independent of the government, with penalties of up to Rs 250 crore.

Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan makes a fair point:........

© National Herald