Listen to this article in summarized format
He added that DPDP Act does not curtail press freedom, cites constitutional guarantees for media independence.
The development comes a day after the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA). The petition, backed by 21 news organisations, has raised concerns that the law could make investigative reporting more difficult and put confidential journalistic sources at risk.
Also Read: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on media groups' challenge to privacy law
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the matter. The next scheduled hearing is on November 17.
At the heart of the publishers' challenge is the absence of a specific exemption for journalism under the DPDP law. The petitioners have pointed out that data protection frameworks in the European Union, Singapore and Britain provide safeguards for journalistic activities.
They argue that requiring journalists to obtain consent from people they are investigating could defeat the very purpose of investigative reporting. It could alert those under scrutiny, giving them time to destroy evidence or intimidate potential witnesses.
The publishers have also questioned provisions that allow individuals to withdraw consent and request the erasure of their personal data.
Their concern is that such requests could force news organisations to take down or heavily redact factually accurate reports, even when the information is relevant to the public interest.
Another issue addressed in the petition is regarding the power given to a federal authority to impose penalties for violations, along with provisions allowing the government to seek information from organisations handling personal data.
According to the publishers, these powers could put confidential sources at risk and discourage whistleblowers from sharing sensitive information on corruption, corporate misconduct or electoral malpractice.
The petition also questions the government's powers to block access to information in the public interest. It argues that these provisions could have consequences for press freedom.
Among the 21 petitioning publishers are media organisations owned by industrialists Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, along with the Indian Express and Times Internet, which is part of the Times of India group.
The concerns are not new. In an August letter to the government, which forms part of the court filing, the DNPA had pointed to what it described as an imbalance in the law. While the legislation provides broad exemptions to the state, it does not extend similar protections to the press, the association argued.
The DNPA also said media organisations had received assurances from the government that press freedom would be protected. But without an explicit exemption written into the law, those assurances had done little to address their concerns.
The DPDP law was brought in to protect individuals' digital personal data and sets out compliance requirements for organisations that collect and process such information, including large technology platforms.
According to Reuters, most of the provisions being challenged are due to come into effect in May 2027.
With the Supreme Court now examining the challenge, the Centre's willingness to consider amendments could provide an opening to address the concerns raised by news publishers. For the industry, however, the central question remains whether the law will offer clear legal protection for journalism carried out in the public interest.