Government Sources Clarify Journalists and Newsrooms Are Not Covered Under DPDP Act

Journalists and news organisations do not fall under the definition of 'data fiduciaries' under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and are therefore not covered by its provisions, according to government sources. The clarification aims to allay concerns within the media industry that the legislation could restrict press freedom and investigative journalism.

Sources stated that the definition of a data fiduciary is clear and proper, primarily covering entities such as banks, insurance companies, telecom operators, and e-commerce platforms that collect and process personal data. Because journalists and newsrooms do not come under this definition, the rules do not apply to them.

The DPDP Act places several obligations on data fiduciaries—defined as persons or entities that determine the purpose and means of processing personal data alone or jointly with others. These obligations include obtaining consent, providing notice to individuals, ensuring data security, reporting personal data breaches, and erasing information once the purpose for collection is fulfilled.

The government's clarification follows concerns raised by news publishers that the absence of an explicit exemption for journalistic activities could complicate reporting on matters of public interest. Publishers argued that the law could create difficulties for investigative journalism, particularly regarding the use and retention of personal data obtained without consent, the protection of confidential sources, and the preservation of material necessary for public-interest reporting.

When asked whether the government had finalized its position on the need for an amendment in law to explicitly safeguard journalistic activities, a source indicated that the administration remains open-minded and willing to take action if needed.

Last month, Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw rejected concerns that the DPDP Act could constrain investigative journalism, asserting that the constitutional guarantee of press freedom remains paramount. He also invited editors and media professionals to engage with the government to discuss their concerns.

The latest remarks from government sources signal a willingness to consider concerns raised by the media industry, even as the administration maintains that journalists and newsrooms fall outside the Act's definition of data fiduciaries.

"The government's clarification regarding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act offers important regulatory clarity for media houses and digital platforms engaged in public-interest reporting. While the distinction between commercial data fiduciaries and journalistic entities helps alleviate immediate compliance concerns, startups and digital publishers must continue to monitor regulatory developments closely. Maintaining transparent data practices while engaging constructively with policymakers will be crucial as the broader digital economy adapts to evolving compliance frameworks." — Dr. Shishir Gupta, Founder & CEO, StartupLanes