Ambani, Adani-linked media groups among petitioners challenging data protection law in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Central government and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on a plea filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), comprising 21 prominent digital news publishers in India, including companies owned by both the Ambani group and the Adani group, challenging the provisions of the the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 [Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) & Anr v. Union of India & Anr].

The plea by the media groups said that the Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 could make it harder for journalists to investigate and report on matters of public interest.

The DNPA represents several major media organisations, including Network18 - which is part of Mukesh Ambani's Reliance group - and NDTV, which is owned by the Adani group.

Its members also include The Indian Express, Times Internet, The Hindu, India Today, Zee Media, ABP Pvt Ltd., Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi Amar Ujala, Eenadu Television Pvt. Ltd. and others.

After taking note of the submissions made, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana declined to grant an interim stay on the law without hearing the government.

"No stay without hearing other side. But notice on stay application issued," said CJI Kant.

The matter will be heard next on November 17.

According to the plea, without a specific exemption for journalistic activities, journalists and news publishers could be subjected to obligations relating to notice, consent and erasure of personal data while carrying out routine reporting, even when the information is gathered and published in the public interest.

As per the petitioners, without such an exemption, journalists could face restrictions while reporting on issues involving public officials, crime, business and governance.

According to the petition,

"Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule of the DPDP Rules, vests in the Central Government an unbridled and standardless authority to requisition any information from any Data Fiduciary or intermediary, unaccompanied by judicial oversight, any requirement of necessity or proportionality, or notice to the affected Data Principal."

The petitioners also raised concerns that the law could expose confidential sources who share information with reporters.

"The conspicuous omission of a journalistic exemption in the Impugned Framework, without adequate safeguards for bona fide journalistic activity carried out in the public interest, threatens to undermine source confidentiality, editorial independence and the effective functioning of the digital news ecosystem," it was submitted.

Hence, the challenged provisions violate fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, the petitioners argued.

"The cumulative effect is to impose a chilling effect on editorial independence and investigative journalism, thereby placing an impermissible burden on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed," contends the petition.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, urged the Court to consider the stay application, arguing that the absence of an exemption for journalistic activities could fundamentally change how news is gathered and reported.

“This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media,” said Divan.

She argued that requiring journalists to seek permission from individuals before publishing information about them could undermine the functioning of newsrooms. Divan also raised concerns about the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which deals with the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.

Additionally, Divan told the Court that the absence of a journalistic exemption amounts to pre-censorship of press could have serious consequences for news reporting.

“We have raised the argument concerning exemptions as well. Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. It is a complete regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask your permission if we report on you. How can that ever be? What is news otherwise? If we report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences,” she said.

She added that earlier versions of the legislation had excluded journalism and questioned why the exemption had not been retained.

“When the Court examines this Act in detail, it will find that it was not meant for journalism at all. In fact, the earlier versions excluded journalism. We do not know why this has happened. Clearly, it was not meant for us,” said Divan.

CJI Kant observed that media organisations were well placed to suggest safeguards against the possible misuse of personal data while protecting journalistic freedom.

“You are the domain experts. You are in this field. You are the best persons to suggest to the Union, as well as to us, how you will ensure that there is no misuse,” he said.

Emphasising the need to balance press freedom with individual privacy, CJI Kant added,

“Innocent citizens have their rights. A balance has to be struck.”

Divan also submitted that the DNPA had already made a representation to the government after filing the petition and offered to assist the Court in examining the regulatory framework applicable to news publishers.

The Court ultimately issued notice on the interim stay application. It also granted the DNPA liberty to serve the standing counsel.

The plea was filled through advocate Mamidipudi Venkatarama Mukunda.

The DNPA was represented by Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan along with advocates Riddima Sharma, Rishikaa Jasman Dhanoa, Akshay Nagarajan, Gauri Khanna and Anuj Tiwari.

[Read Live Coverage]