The DPDP Act, 2023 seeks to protect privacy but risks diluting transparency and press freedom. Critically examine.

K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) recognised privacy as part of Article 21. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 builds on that judgment and came into force through the DPDP Rules notified in November 2025 [3]. The Act protects privacy in real ways. However, it says nothing about journalism and it amends the RTI Act, and both create avoidable conflicts with transparency.

Privacy gains

• Consent-based processing: Data Fiduciaries must get consent for a stated purpose. Data Principals can access, correct and erase their data [2].
• Deterrence: penalties go up to ₹250 crore for failing to keep data secure [2].
• Easier enforcement: a digital-first Data Protection Board takes complaints online, appeals go to TDSAT, and organisations get an 18-month phased compliance period [3].

Risks to transparency

• RTI dilution: Section 44(3) rewrites Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It drops the public-interest qualifier, so any personal information can be refused [2]. An officer's assets or a beneficiary list may now be denied at the first step.
• Burden on the citizen: the Sec. 8(2) public-interest override survives. But the citizen must now win an appeal to use it, which slows social audits and RTI activism.

Risks to press freedom

• No journalism exemption: the Act has none [1]. Yet the 2018 Srikrishna Committee draft exempted journalistic processing, with safeguards [4].
• Chilling effect: publishers fear exposure on three fronts: reporting without consent, keeping investigative material, and protecting confidential sources [1]. High maximum penalties [2] deter small newsrooms in particular.
• Assurance is not law: the IT Minister says the Act fully maintains constitutional press freedom [1]. However, the Board will apply the text of the Act, not ministerial statements.

Assessment

• Government's case: Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on speech. A blanket exemption could also shield doxxing or data trading.
• Verdict: this concern is valid. It argues for a narrow, tightly defined exemption, not for having none at all.

The Act gives India a needed privacy framework, but its costs to transparency can be avoided. The government says it is open to "hardcoding" a journalism safeguard [1]. That offer should become three changes:

• a narrowly defined exemption on the 2018 model;
• the public-interest test restored in Sec. 8(1)(j);
• explicit protection for sources.

Balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 in this way would honour Puttaswamy's proportionality test and make the Act a model for weighing rights against each other.