Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Reply to Digital Publishers' Challenge to the DPDP Act

The Supreme Court on 27 October 2026 issued notice to the Centre on a petition by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging parts of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which publishers say leaves no room for journalism. It declined to grant an interim stay and listed the case for 17 November.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought the government's response to the petition and to the publishers' application for a stay, Inc42 and BestMediaInfo reported. "No stay without hearing other side," the Chief Justice said, according to Inc42.

What the publishers are challenging

The DNPA, which represents 21 digital news publishers including NDTV, Network18, The Indian Express, India Today and Times Internet, filed the plea on 6 October. It challenges:

• Consent rules: the requirement to get a person's consent before processing their data, which publishers say would mean notifying the subjects of investigations.
• Withdrawal and erasure: the right to withdraw consent and have data deleted, which they argue could force them to remove or rewrite factual reports.
• Government powers: the Centre's power to demand information from organisations that process personal data, which they say could expose confidential sources.
• The RTI amendment: a change to the Right to Information Act made through the DPDP Act that limits access to personal information.

Most of the contested provisions take effect in May 2027, according to Inc42.

What was argued

Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, for the DNPA, argued that requiring journalists to seek consent from the people they report on could amount to pre-censorship and hamper investigative journalism, BestMediaInfo reported. The association says earlier drafts of the law, in 2018, 2019 and 2021, carried an exemption for journalism that was dropped before the Act was passed.

The court said a balance was needed between citizens' privacy and the media's rights, and asked the publishers to suggest safeguards against misuse of any exemption for journalism. The government's response has not been reported. The court has not ruled on whether the provisions are valid.

The case adds to a busy month for platform and publisher regulation, after the court sought the Centre's view on age limits for children's social media use, and as publishers abroad push back against Meta's new business terms.