The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has said the newly notified rules under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, leave significant gaps that could affect how newsrooms operate. While the rules bring the Act into force, they do not spell out protections for journalistic work or offer guidance tailored to media organisations.
‘Assurances given earlier, but no legal clarification’
The guild noted that during a meeting in July, senior officials at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had assured press bodies that journalistic activity would fall outside the DPDP Act’s scope. However, the guild pointed out that this assurance has not been formalised through any legal clarification or amendment, leaving ambiguity for news publishers.
As per news reports, after the July meeting, the EGI and several media organisations submitted 35 detailed questions and scenario-based queries to MeitY. These sought clarity on consent requirements, exemptions, data retention, research use-cases, and public-interest reporting where personal data is often involved. The guild said it has yet to receive an official response.
Key issues
The statement highlighted three major concerns, one of them being possible dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) framework due to overlaps with DPDP provisions. Secondly, the absence of explicit journalistic exemptions in the Act or rules and thirdly, uncertainty around how media houses are supposed to become compliant with the new rules.
The guild warned that these gaps could place new burdens on newsrooms and impede their ability to report effectively. The EGI reiterated that without clear exemptions, journalistic work could be interpreted as “processing” under the DPDP Act, requiring consent for routine reporting activities. This, it said, could chill investigative work and obstruct accountability journalism—particularly when reporting involves sensitive personal data or inquiries into official wrongdoing.
The guild urged MeitY to issue a clear statement or introduce an exemption that explicitly shields legitimate journalistic activities. It emphasised that data protection obligations must be balanced with constitutional protections for free speech and the public’s right to know.