Report by –
SHASHWATT SRIVASTAVA
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), which was passed in August 2023, aimed to protect the personal data of citizens and bring India’s laws up to global standards like the EU’s GDPR. While this is seen as a step forward for data privacy, there are now growing concerns about how it might affect journalism, public access to information, and the balance of power between the government and its citizens.
What is the DPDP Act ?
The DPDP Act focuses on how personal data should be handled, meaning any personal information like names, addresses, or contact details must have clear consent from individuals before it’s collected or used. Organizations or individual entities, called ‘data fiduciaries,’ must get permission before using someone’s personal information. This is intended to protect privacy, but it seems to create serious challenges for journalism.
Journalists often rely on personal details, like names, to report on issues such as corruption or matters of public interest. Under the DPDP Act, journalists would need to get permission before publishing even basic personal information. If they fail to do so, they could face large fines. This could stop reporters from investigating important topics, as they may hesitate to publish names or identities without approval. Ultimately, this law could limit journalists’ ability to report freely on critical issues and prevent the public from receiving important information.
The law also gives individuals the right to access, correct, or delete their data. In case of a data breach, the company must inform both the authorities and the affected individuals within 72 hours. Additionally, the law requires that data about Indian citizens be stored within the country, which may create issues for international companies that process data across borders.
Concerns for Journalism
While the DPDP Act aims to protect personal privacy, it has raised concerns about its impact on journalism. One of the primary issues is the potential for hefty fines, up to ₹250 crore, for publishing personal information without consent. This could make it challenging for journalists to report on sensitive topics like corruption or public interest issues, as they would need to get explicit permission before publishing names or details.
The concern grows with questions about how journalists, especially those with modest salaries, could afford such heavy fines if they report on matters involving personal information. Given the role of a free press in holding the government accountable, critics argue that these penalties seem disproportionate.
Additionally, the law raises concerns about whether public information, such as government contracts or public servant assets, could be classified as personal data. If so, journalists may struggle to access vital information, limiting their ability to report on corruption or other critical issues. The law also questions whether the burden of fines will fall on individual journalists, media outlets, or both, further complicating the issue. Critics suggest that the primary goal of journalism, which is to inform the public and ensure transparency, would be hindered by crippling fines for reporting on matters of public interest.
The Government’s Response
In response to concerns raised about the DPDP Act, the Indian government has stated that it will make amendments to the law to make sure it does not restrict journalistic freedom. The government has promised to provide clearer guidelines regarding consent and has assured that journalists will not be penalized for fulfilling their duties. However, many still question whether these changes will be sufficient to protect freedom of speech.
While the DPDP Act is a major step forward in protecting personal data, it has also raised concerns about its potential impact on the press and access to critical public information. If journalists and media organizations face penalties for reporting on matters like corruption or other important issues, it could seriously compromise transparency and accountability within the government. The key challenge now is for the government to balance privacy protection with the preservation of free speech and the public’s right to know.
