Strategic deployment of ROPA during India's DPDP transition: A comparative analysis of compliance methodologies

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 ("DPDP Act"), received Presidential assent on August 11, 2023, establishing India's inaugural comprehensive framework for digital personal data governance. The DPDP Rules, 2025 (“Rules”) notified vide the gazette dated November 13, 2025, provide an 18-month phased compliance timeline. 

Phased implementation of statutory obligations

The Rules come into force in phases. Rules 1, 2, and 17-21 take effect immediately upon notification. Rule 4 (consent manager registration) kicks in after one year. The remaining provisions (notably Rules 3, 5-16, and 22-23) apply after an 18-month transition.

Immediate Effect (November 2025):

• Constitutional provisions of the Data Protection Board

• Definitional frameworks and interpretative provisions

• Digital-first governance mechanisms

One-Year Implementation (November 2026):

• Consent Manager registration requirements

• Establishment of consent management infrastructure

18-Month Implementation (May 2027):

• Consent notice requirements pursuant to Rule 3

• Security safeguards under technical and organizational measures

• Breach reporting protocols, including prompt notification to affected individuals in plain language

• Data Principal rights implementation (access, correction, erasure)

• Retention obligations requiring maintenance of personal data, associated traffic data, and certain logs for at least one year for specified purposes

• Children's data processing restrictions with verifiable parental consent

• Cross-border transfer mechanisms and localisation requirements for Significant Data Fiduciaries

Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)

Banks, NBFCs, fintech platforms, and payment operators handle (sensitive) personal data – identity documents, biometrics, financial transactions, and credit histories. The DPDP Act creates a parallel compliance layer supplementing existing Reserve Bank of India (RBI) mandates, presenting unique challenges.

Regulatory Convergence Issues:

• The DPDP Act allows individuals to demand deletion once the purpose is complete, while RBI requires retention of KYC and transaction records for specified periods

• Conflict between consent withdrawal rights under the DPDP Act and statutory KYC obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

• Reconciliation of data localisation requirements under RBI Payment Data Storage Guidelines with cross-border transfer provisions under the DPDP Act

Strategic NBFC Compliance Considerations:

• Harmonisation of consent management systems with existing customer onboarding frameworks

• Integration of DPDP Act grievance redressal with Banking Ombudsman mechanisms

• Documentation of legitimate interests for credit scoring and fraud prevention activities

Healthcare Sector Compliance

The healthcare industry is a prime target for cyberattacks due to the sensitivity and value of patient data, including medical history, treatment details, and financial records. Healthcare entities face distinctive compliance challenges.

Regulatory Multiplicity:

• Healthcare fiduciaries must view DPDP Act compliance not merely as a legal duty but as an ethical imperative

• Alignment with Clinical Establishments Act, Medical Council of India regulations, and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) guidelines

• Pharmaceutical companies and contract research organisations (CROs) must review their current data privacy programmes with an India-centred lens, examining additional requirements related to HIPAA, CCPA, and GDPR

Healthcare-Specific Implementation Requirements:

• Appointment of Data Protection Officers to oversee compliance efforts for organisations processing large volumes of sensitive data

• Implementation of consent management systems for clinical trial participants

• Pathology and diagnostic laboratories must protect patient information from breaches and misuse through stringent data security measures and transparency in data processing activities

The ROPA approach under GDPR Article 30

Records of Processing Activities (ROPA) constitute a mandatory requirement under GDPR Article 30, compelling organisations to maintain comprehensive documentation encompassing:

• Processing purposes with granular specificity

• Categories of data subjects and personal data typologies

• Recipients, including third-party processors and cross-border transfer destinations

• Retention periods with deletion schedules

• Technical and organizational measures description

Having an ROPA in place represents the cornerstone of any privacy compliance framework and plays a vital role in identifying risks associated with processing personal data. The methodology provides systematic benefits.

Advantages of ROPA implementation:

• ROPA, alongside data mapping and information asset registers, forms the foundation of compliance

• Establishes demonstrable accountability for regulatory inquiries

• ROPA is an ongoing requirement – you need to keep it updated as your processing activities change

• Creates sustainable documentation infrastructure transferable across jurisdictions

Direct gap analysis methodology

A compliance program gap analysis is primarily a desk review that follows a checklist tied to standard elements of a compliance program, consisting of conducting a document review of charters, Code of Conduct, compliance-related policies, hotline logs, and minutes of compliance oversight committees.

Gap analysis characteristics:

• Provides a point-in-time analysis to review the current situation in terms of compliance to identify potential areas of non-compliance

• Generally, costs only about a third to half of a full compliance program effectiveness evaluation, but with limited results

• Suitable for organisations seeking a rapid baseline assessment

Practical determination: ROPA versus gap analysis

The determination between methodologies requires consideration of organisational maturity, resource constraints, and compliance objectives:

ROPA deployment indicators:

• Organisations with multi-jurisdictional operations requiring harmonised compliance

• Entities anticipating designation as Significant Data Fiduciaries

• While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act doesn't explicitly mandate RoPA, organisations can significantly benefit from maintaining such records, as it helps identify gaps in compliance with the DPDP Act and strengthens their approach to data protection

Gap analysis preference factors:

• A DPDP Act gap analysis helps identify gaps/ voids in the current state and determine action items for compliance, followed by an impact assessment to discover investment priorities for remediation

• Resource-constrained organisations requiring immediate baseline assessment

• Entities with limited processing complexity seeking targeted remediation.

Hybrid approach consideration

Organisations should consider deploying a phased methodology combining immediate gap analysis with progressive ROPA development:

Initial Gap Assessment (Months 1-3):

• Conduct high-level regulatory mapping

• Identify critical compliance deltas

• Prioritise remediation based on risk scoring

ROPA Development (Months 4-12):

• Deploy systematic data mapping exercises

• Document processing activities with requisite granularity

• Establish update mechanisms and governance structures

Integration and Optimisation (Months 13-18):

• Harmonise ROPA with technical measures implementation

• Conduct data protection impact assessments for high-risk processing

• Establish continuous monitoring and audit mechanisms

For NBFCs:

• Prioritise consent management system implementation compatible with digital lending guidelines

• Develop retention matrices reconciling DPDP Act with sectoral regulation

• Establish dedicated privacy functions separate from existing compliance structures

For healthcare entities:

• Healthcare providers must stay updated on the latest legal requirements and ensure their data protection measures are fully compliant

• Implement role-based access controls aligned with medical ethics requirements

• Develop patient-centric consent frameworks for research and treatment purposes

The 18-month transitional period represents a critical juncture for Indian data fiduciaries to establish robust privacy governance frameworks. While ROPA methodology lacks an explicit mandate under the DPDP Act, its systematic approach provides superior long-term value compared to isolated gap analyses. Organisations must evaluate their specific circumstances, regulatory exposure, and operational complexity when determining optimal compliance strategies.

The convergence of sectoral regulations with horizontal data protection requirements necessitates sophisticated compliance architectures. In a digital economy, compliance directly builds consumer trust and brand value. Entities that deploy comprehensive methodologies during the transition period shall emerge with competitive advantages extending beyond mere regulatory compliance.

Forward-looking organisations should treat this transitional phase not as a compliance burden but as an opportunity to establish privacy as a fundamental business enabler. Whether through ROPA, gap analysis, or hybrid approaches, the imperative remains constant: systematic, documented, and demonstrable commitment to data protection principles that withstand regulatory scrutiny while fostering stakeholder trust.

About the author: Vinay Butani is a Partner at Economic Laws Practice.

The above article does not constitute legal advice and the views expressed herein are personal views of the authors.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.