You Are The Best Person To Suggest How To Ensure No Misuse: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Digital News Publishers Association’s Plea Challenging DPDP Act
The Court said that, as domain experts, they are best placed to suggest safeguards against misuse, as a balance must be struck between innocent citizens and press rights.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association and journalist Yukta Mugdal challenging the constitutional validity of key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025.
It was argued that the law threatens to impose pre-censorship and shut down newsrooms, while the Chief Justice observed that the media, being the domain experts, are best placed to suggest to the Union and the Court how misuse can be prevented while balancing the rights of innocent citizens.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Issue Notice. Returnable on November 17th."
Senior Advocate Madhavi Goradia Divan appeared for the Petitioners
Divan submitted, "There are several other petitions; however, this is perhaps the first comprehensive one by the institutional, what we call legacy media. There has been some debate about citizen journalists, etc. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media...Because Section 81(J), that provision—the deletion has already... Daily, it's changing the whole concept of what is news. Because if I am left to the mercy of the data principal on whether or not he or she will give consent... the concept of news... news has to be... sometimes on TV it is live, otherwise it has to be new. The concept will close down the newsroom. What is the point if I have to ask for permission and for consent?"
Chief Justice Kant said, "You see, you are the domain experts because you are in this field. You are the best person to suggest to the Union as well as to us how you will ensure that there is no misuse...It is between the innocent citizens and your rights. So, there has to be a balance that has to be struck...Therefore, we will leave it to you, where you are the best person to guide and to suggest how you are going to ensure"
She argued that the legislation, which was never intended to apply to journalism and threatens to impose a regime of pre-censorship and shut down newsrooms, should not restrict reporting or freeze content before publication, emphasizing that legacy media is already thoroughly regulated across print, broadcast, and IT rules.
A plea was filed by the Digital News Publishers Association and Journalist Yukta Mugdal, praying for a direction to declare, under Article 13(2) that Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37, and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Gazette Notification G.S.R. 843/E0 dated 13.11.2025, being ultra vires of the Constitution of India, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 as being inconsistent with Article, 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and Article 21.
"Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the substituted clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which brought into force through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is ultra vires the Constitution", the plea prayed.
The Court had, previously, issued notice in the plea seeking the validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The digital news platform The Reporters' Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
Another petition was filed by the National Campaign for the Peoples' Right to Information (NCPRI) challenging the amendments made to the RTI Act through the DPDP Act.
In another matter, the Court, while issuing notice, had highlighted that because data is now handled by massive global companies, protecting data sovereignty and the "right to privacy" has become an urgent global issue that needs clear legal boundaries. The Court was hearing a plea filed by a journalist, Geeta Seshu and others inter alia seeking direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional.
Cause Title: Digital News Publishers Association and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [Diary No. 45589/2026]