Introduction

On 13th November 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MEITY”) notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”). This was in pursuance of a public consultation process in early 2025, where MEITY had released a draft version of the DPDP Rules. In addition, MEITY has notified the timeline for a phased implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) (“the Act”). Amongst various sections of the Act, the notification also brings into effect Section 44(3) of the Act, which causes an amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). This coupled with the exclusion of a specific exemption for journalistic work, raises grave and long-term implications on press freedom, right to information and the vitality of public interest journalism in India.

Implications of non-inclusion of journalistic purposes exemption under the Act

In its report, Center for News, Technology and Innovation (“CNTI”) conducted a survey with 430 journalists in 60 countries (including India) across the world. Findings from the survey suggested that 66 per cent of journalists interviewed from the Global South used technology to summarize or analyse data or documents. This indicates that journalism in the current day and age involves significant use of technology as well as processing/analysis of documents and data. The Act and the Rules, by not including journalistic exemptions, will result in journalists and media organisations qualifying as Data Fiduciaries, considering that they also tend to collect personal data in the ordinary and routine course of journalistic work. In absence of carefully tailored exemptions, media organisations would be held accountable as Data Fiduciaries, and would require them to undertake exhaustive data protection compliance whenever they process personal data in pursuance of journalistic work — thereby creating a problem that is indigenous to India’s data protection landscape. Compliance of this scale will place an undue and significant restriction on such stakeholders in practising their profession.

 

Notably, solutions to this issue were presented in both 2018 and 2019 versions of the Personal Data Protection Bill (“PDP Bill”). Both Bills included a separate provision that exempted ‘necessary or relevant processing of personal data in relation to journalistic purposes’. For instance, the PDP Bill of 2019 included this exemption as a sub-clause (e) of Clause 36 in the following form-

 

“processing of personal data is necessary for or relevant to a journalistic purpose, by any person and is in compliance with any code of ethics issued by the Press Council of India, or by any media self-regulatory organisation.”

 

Correspondingly, legal solutions to this problem can also be found in foreign jurisdictions, such as Article 85 of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), Paragraph 4(a) under Article 4 of the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (“LGPD”) . It carves out a similar exemption that prescribes the necessity to balance the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of speech and expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes. Recital 153 of the GDPR underscores the importance of journalism in furthering the right to freedom of expression in every democratic society. Additionally, it mandates Member States to adopt legislative measures which lay down the exemptions and derogations necessary for balancing these fundamental rights.

Implications of amending Section 8(1)(j) the RTI Act

Earlier this year, SFLC.in had joined over 30 civil society organisations, urging the Government of India to not operationalise Section 44(3) of the Act. In June 2025, the Press Club of India, in association with other press bodies and journalists across the country, had also submitted a joint memorandum to the Hon’ble Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, raising numerous concerns on how the current framework under the Act would endanger and impede professional work of journalists across print, online and electronic media. One of those concerns also related to amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which had been a vital tool for public interest journalism, to uncover facts and important information on instances of scams and corruption. Subsequently, MEITY issued a press release, incorrectly stating that Section 44(3) upholds the fundamental right to privacy while preserving transparency under the RTI Act.

 

The unamended version of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been reproduced below. The text in bold format indicates the content of the provision after the amendment. The remaining text [included between square brackets] was included in the provision before the amendment.

 

…information which relates to personal information [the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information]…

 

It becomes evident that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act effectively dismantles the right to information, as Central/State Public Information Officers/appellate authorities are no longer required to consider larger public interest justifications, that would necessitate the disclosure of personal information in pursuance to RTI applications. In Bihar Public Service Commission v Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61, Justice Swatanter Kumar had also underscored the importance of maintaining an effective balance between right to privacy and right to right to information while considering larger public interest.

 

SFLC.in had also offered its recommendations on this issue, during the public consultation process for the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022. Justice Srikrishna Committee had recommended amending this provision to effectively harmonise transparency and privacy, by prescribing under which circumstances ‘disclosure of personal information would be a proportionate restriction to privacy’.

Conclusion

Since 2024, India has been ranked 159 and 151 out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index. Enforcement of the Act along with the DPDP Rules in its current form will exacerbate the chilling effect on press freedom, weaken right to information and permanently impede public interest journalism, transparency and accountability, all of which are essential facets of a functioning democracy.

 

SFLC.in recommends that the Act along with the DPDP Rules must be suitably amended to include a dedicated exemption for processing of personal data in pursuance of journalistic purposes. Such an exemption can be included as an additional purpose to research, archiving or statistical in Section 17(2)(b) of the Act. It would also be recommended to define journalistic purposes, based on the definition proposed in Clause 3(24) of the PDP Bill, 2019. Finally, as urged in a statement issued last month, it would be imperative to halt the operationalisation of Section 44(3) of the Act and restore Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to its unamended version, to retain the balance between right to privacy and right to information.