Supreme Court Won't Stay DPDP Act Provisions, Issues Notice to Centre on News Publishers' Plea
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to put on hold the operation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, while issuing notice to the Centre on a challenge filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA). The association argues that the data protection framework threatens press freedom.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, heard the association's plea seeking judicial scrutiny of the provisions. The Court declined to grant a stay at this stage, with the CJI observing that it would not pass an ex parte order — one made without hearing the other side — without hearing the Centre.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, urged the Court to suspend the operation of the challenged provisions, saying their implementation could seriously impede how newsrooms function. She asked how journalists could report on individuals if they were required to obtain their consent before publishing information about them. Divan submitted that the law could fundamentally change the way news is gathered and disseminated, and that tying reporting to the consent of the person whose information is being reported could undermine media organisations' ability to do their work, especially with time-sensitive news.
The senior counsel also pointed out that journalists and media organisations are already governed by several regulatory frameworks, including the Cable Television Network framework, uplinking and downlinking regulations, the Information Technology Rules and the Press Council framework.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed that media organisations have the expertise to suggest safeguards against potential misuse of personal data. He asked the association to consider how the concerns around the legislation could be addressed in consultation with the Union Government and the Court.
The case sits within a wider debate over the balance between the right to privacy and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression and access to information. The Supreme Court is already examining separate challenges to provisions of the DPDP Act, particularly the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which deals with the disclosure of personal information under the RTI framework. That amendment has been challenged on the ground that it could substantially restrict the availability of information in matters involving public interest.
The pending proceedings raise questions about whether the statutory framework strikes a constitutionally permissible balance between protecting personal data and preserving transparency in public administration. The Court has previously considered whether the DPDP regime creates an overly broad restriction on the disclosure of digital personal information, and whether the amendment to the RTI Act can be reconciled with the constitutional right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
The refusal to grant an interim stay is not a final determination of the constitutional challenge. The Court will examine the issues further after considering the Centre's response.
Source: India Legal