NEW DELHI: The Press Club of India (PCI) has issued a sharp warning that the newly notified Digital Personal Data Protection Rules could seriously undermine press freedom by giving the executive unchecked authority over journalistic work.
In a detailed statement, the organisation said the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had ignored months of engagement by journalist groups who flagged major gaps in the law.
The club said it was “deeply anguished by the manner” in which the rules were notified, stressing that the process sidelined key concerns raised collectively by 23 press bodies.
The PCI noted that it had joined leading journalist associations in submitting a memorandum to MEITY in June, outlining how the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, contained sections that could be used to obstruct legitimate newsgathering.
According to the club, the intention behind the memorandum was straightforward.
“The first was to engage with the government in the most constructive and democratic manner,” the statement said, adding that journalists wanted rules that did not “strangle the functioning of journalists and media organisations” in India.
The second objective, it said, was to show that several provisions of the Act were “riddled with serious ambiguities” that opened the door to misuse.
Following a meeting with MEITY Secretary S. Krishnan on July 28, press bodies submitted a detailed set of 35 FAQs in August. These examples, drawn from daily reporting practice, illustrated situations where regulators could interpret ordinary journalistic work as a violation of data-protection obligations.
The PCI said the purpose was to flag how loosely drafted clauses relating to consent, data gathering, and processing could be “weaponised to hamper or curtail the functioning of the press.”
Despite this, the organisation said, the government offered no substantive assurance that journalists would be protected.
Journalists also submitted Article 85 of the European Union’s GDPR at the request of senior officials, pointing out that European democracies include explicit exemptions for media work.
The PCI said the Indian law provides no such clarity, leaving reporters vulnerable to complaints or official actions every time they collect information that involves personal data.
The press release also drew attention to an element the PCI says has not received enough public scrutiny: the dilution of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through Section 44 of the DPDP Act.
The club said this amendment “was detrimental to the functioning of the press,” weakening a crucial pathway through which journalists accessed information in the public interest.
Press bodies argue that by tightening personal-data exceptions under RTI, the government has made it harder to obtain information about public officials, administrative decisions, and potential wrongdoing.
Combined with the new data law, the club said, the change creates an environment where information-gathering can be blocked in the name of privacy.
In an effort to highlight what it sees as a dangerous trend, the PCI recalled its long history of defending journalistic rights.
During the 1975 Emergency, it said, “some of our members were even imprisoned for their acts of defiance” against censorship. Later, in 1988, hundreds of journalists marched from the Press Club to India Gate to protest the Defamation Bill, ultimately forcing its withdrawal.
The club said the current policy environment evokes similar concerns. The DPDP law, it said, effectively allows the government to act as “judge, jury, and executioner” by placing sweeping adjudicating powers in the hands of the executive.
Despite multiple submissions, meetings, and written examples shared with the authorities, the PCI said it has not seen “any demonstrable evidence from the Government of India” that it plans to protect journalists from the broad powers embedded in the Act. Instead, it said journalists “were met with a wall of obfuscation put up by the Executive.”
The club stressed that journalists were not opposing data protection itself. “We at no stage asked for repealing the law,” the statement said, noting that the media fully recognises the need for citizens’ data to be safeguarded in the digital era.
What they seek, it said, is a fair and workable system that distinguishes between intrusive data misuse and legitimate reporting in the public interest.
The PCI urged the government to revise the rules and insert clear exemptions for journalistic activity, similar to global standards. Without these protections, it warned, reporters could face regulatory action for routine tasks like contacting sources, verifying details, investigating corruption, or documenting state conduct.
The organisation argued that the basic problem lies in the concentration of power. With no independent oversight body and no judicial filter built into the enforcement process, the Act leaves journalists exposed to arbitrary interpretation or malicious complaints.
The statement said the club hopes “better sense prevails” and the government recognises the central role of a free press in a democracy. It emphasised that the media’s engagement with MEITY — through the memorandum, FAQs, and public consultations — was itself an act of civic responsibility.
The DPDP rules come at a time when journalist bodies across India have been expressing concern about what they describe as an increasing “weaponisation” of laws against the media. Over the past decade, reporters have faced criminal charges, digital surveillance, and regulatory pressure in different states.
By placing the new data regime in that larger context, the PCI said the danger is not in the text of the law alone but in how it may be applied. The club said the rules, as framed, create a climate of uncertainty that could lead to self-censorship or make newsrooms wary of pursuing public-interest stories.
For the PCI, the issue is both legal and democratic. A data framework meant to protect citizens, it said, should not become — or be allowed to become — a mechanism to shield the government from scrutiny.
“The journalists,” the club reminded, “were performing their duty of strengthening the democratic process and their right to freedom of expression.”
Have you liked the news article?
