Discuss whether a statutory exemption for journalism is necessary under India's data protection regime, given Article 19(1)(a).

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 came into operation through Rules notified in November 2025 [3]. Under the Act, consent is the basis for processing personal data. Unlike India's 2018 draft, the Act has no exemption for journalism [1][4]. This sets privacy under Article 21 (Puttaswamy, 2017) against press freedom, which is implied in Article 19(1)(a). A narrow statutory exemption is therefore necessary.

Case for a statutory exemption

• Consent conflict: Investigative stories need personal data about the people being investigated, and that data is collected without their consent. Publishers also fear rules on retaining notes and exposing confidential sources [1].
• A promise is not law: The IT Minister says the Act "fully maintains" journalistic freedom [1]. However, the Data Protection Board applies the Act's text, and the exemptions in Section 17 leave out journalism [2].
• Chilling effect: Penalties go up to ₹250 crore [2], and any Data Principal can file a complaint online with the Board [3]. Small newsrooms may drop stories rather than risk proceedings.
• Less transparency: Section 44(3) amends RTI Section 8(1)(j). This widens the exemption for personal information [2] and weakens another accountability tool that journalists use.
• Precedent: The Srikrishna Committee's 2018 draft exempted journalistic processing, with safeguards [4].

Case against a blanket exemption

• Privacy is a fundamental right: A loose "journalism" label could shield doxxing, or data brokers posing as media.
• Article 19(2): Press freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions. Balancing case by case can protect individuals.
• Definition problem: In the digital age anyone can claim to be a journalist, so a vague carve-out becomes a loophole.

Way forward

• A narrow exemption linked to a defined "journalistic purpose" and to public interest, following the 2018 model [4].
• Explicit protection for source confidentiality and investigative records.
• Journalists still keep the core duties of reasonable security and fair processing.
• The government has said it is open to "hardcoding" a safeguard [1]. That openness should become an amendment to the Act.

Privacy and a free press both sustain democracy, and the law's silence should not trade one for the other. A narrowly drafted exemption with safeguards would give journalists legal certainty and still protect Data Principals. This would achieve the balance between Articles 19 and 21 that Puttaswamy envisaged.