DPDP Act: Journalists’ have every right to seek Centre’s clarifications

If the media person is using the data strictly for public interest journalism, such as exposing systemic flaws in the Aadhaar system causing denial of ration, and Personal identifiers are anonymised or not disclosed, or are used only to support systemic analysis, then explicit individual consent may not be required under the journalistic exemption

Ever since freedom of expression was part of the Constitutional foundation for citizens, the media has been protecting democracy braving oppression of the government and extra-social organisations. The development of the law of privacy into an enactment as passed by Parliament recently, the conflict with the ‘press’ is felt as a painful performance of the duty of journalists and now media personalities.

The Digital Personal Data Privacy (DPDP) Act is evolving into a monster, if not a devil. Now in the form of serious ‘concern’, as its ‘evolution’ is demonstrated by the Press Club of India (PCI) and the Indian Women Press Corps (IWPC). They have submitted 35 questions to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTy).

It can be understood in the form of FAQs sought by the ministry’s secretary S. Krishnan during a meeting he had with representatives of the PCI, IWPC, DIGIPUB, and Editors Guild of India on July 28.

The delegation wanted a journalistic exemption from DPDP law. They are perceived as a threat. They wanted to meet MeiTy Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw while submitting to him through the principal director general of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) a joint memorandum with 21 other elected press bodies from across the country and over one thousand journalists expressing their deep concern about the Act not having a journalistic exemption.

Here is the question relates to the balance (if possible) between freedom of the press, public interest journalism, and individual privacy, especially considering the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) 2023, Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

It is a very complicated legal question but totally affects the journalistic activities of entire nation.

If a person involved in journalistic activity is working on a story on denial of ration cards to people of a certain region due to mismatch with Aadhaar data and collects personal data of the affected people such as name, age, and place for identifying the extent of the problems.

This situation raises two questions:

ü Is the individual involved in journalistic activity required to take “informed consent” from everyone for processing this raw data and using it in a coherent tabular format in an article to highlight the systemic problem in the public interest?

Informed consent:

Problem No. 1: Is the individual involved in journalistic activity required to take “informed consent” from everyone for processing this raw data and using it in a coherent tabular format in an article to highlight the systemic problem in the public interest?

Under normal and common situations, it means: No, not necessarily, provided that certain conditions are met. Based on Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act).

Processing for journalistic purposes:

(a) The DPDP Act applies to the processing of personal data. Consent is a general requirement unless an exemption applies. One key exemption (Section 7 of the Act) is “Processing for journalistic purposes”, provided that it is in public interest and subject to reasonable expectations of privacy.

Hence, if the media person is using the data strictly for public interest journalism, such as exposing systemic flaws in the Aadhaar system causing denial of ration, and Personal identifiers are anonymised or not disclosed, or are used only to support systemic analysis, then explicit individual consent may not be required under the journalistic exemption.

The right to access information: (b) Under the RTI Act, 2005: RTI gives citizens the right to access information held by the state — not necessarily applicable to journalists’ collecting data from individuals directly. However, the spirit of the RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability and supports access to information of public interest.

Freedom of speech and expression: (c) As understood through Article 19(1)(a) Freedom of Speech and Expression: Includes the freedom of the press, as the Courts have consistently held that public interest journalism is protected. The Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India recognized the right to food as part of Article 21, and journalistic efforts to uncover denial of such rights strengthen democracy and public accountability.

Thus, we can conclude that the Informed consent is not strictly required, provided: The data is used for journalistic/public interest purposes. The information is minimally intrusive, used responsibly, and potentially anonymized. There’s no malafide use or commercial exploitation. But ‘freedom’ of the journalist totally depends on the malafide and commercial exploitation as used by the Government, their ministry and bureaucracy.

Second point

Since, this situation involves flaws that are inbuilt and baked into the Aadhaar architecture, does the person involved in journalistic activity needs “informed consent” of the concerned official of UIDAI before highlighting how Aadhaar-based ration cards are responsible for denial of food?

Problem No. 2: Does the person involved in journalistic activity need “informed consent” of the concerned official of UIDAI before highlighting how Aadhaar-based ration cards are responsible for denial of food?

The answer is ‘no’. Because the people have (a) Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(a): There is no legal obligation to seek consent from public officials to report on government systems, schemes, or failures. Holding public authorities accountable is a core function of journalism.

RTI and Aadhaar: (b) under the RTI Act is based on the principle that government actions are open to scrutiny. Information about how UIDAI functions, systemic issues in Aadhaar, and its impact on welfare schemes is not protected from public discourse. Unless it falls under Section 8 (exemptions related to national security, etc.), no consent is required from UIDAI.

(c) The DPDP Act, 2023 regulates the processing of personal data of individuals, not institutional critique of systems like Aadhaar. Highlighting systemic flaws in Aadhaar does not involve processing personal data of UIDAI officials, hence no consent needed.

(d) The precedent and legal principle: Public officials have a reduced expectation of privacy in their official capacity. Reporting on flaws in public systems is a constitutionally protected activity unless it crosses into defamation, misinformation, or personal attacks.

Hence, the journalist does not require informed consent from UIDAI officials to critique the Aadhaar system or report its failures in delivering food security. Doing so is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and aligns with the press’s role in a democratic society.