Supreme Court Refuses To Stay DPDP Act Provisions; Notice Issued On Plea Alleging Violation Of Press Freedom

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a plea filed by the Digital News Publishers Association challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, for allegedly violating press freedom.

However, a CJI Surya Kant led bench refused to stay the impugned provisions. "We will never pass an ex parte order without hearing the other side," CJI told the petitioners before it.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the Association submitted before court today, "Please stay the impugned provisions. Newsrooms will shut down, how can we ask for your permission before reporting on you."

The bench however refused to pass any such orders.

Divan at the outset told court, "This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media. Section 8(1)(j), the deletion, is changing the whole concept of news. The concept of news has to be considered. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported? On television, it is live. Otherwise, it has to be new. This will close down newsrooms."

CJI told Divan, "You are the domain experts. You are in this field. You are the best persons to suggest to the Union, as well as to us, how you will ensure that there is no misuse."

Divan further submitted that journalists are covered under the Cable Television framework, uplinking and downlinking regulations, IT Rules and the Press Council.

Court is already seized of a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, particularly its amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, with petitioners contending that the legislation substantially weakens citizens' right to access information by creating an expansive exemption for "personal information."

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana in August had considered submissions that the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act upsets the constitutional balance between the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi had observed that while the RTI Act and the DPDP Act operate in different spheres, they also overlap in certain respects, requiring the Court to examine whether both legislations coexist harmoniously. He further remarked that the Court would consider whether there exists an intelligible differentia for treating digital personal data differently and whether the DPDP Act indirectly overrides the RTI Act by creating a wider embargo on disclosure.

Justice Bagchi had also noted that the Court would examine whether the State's more cautionary approach towards disclosure satisfies the constitutional test of reasonable classification and whether a blanket restriction on disclosure of digital personal information can be justified. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, sought two weeks' time to file the Centre's response and assured the Bench that the government would justify the legislative amendments. Accepting the request, the Supreme Court directed the Union to file its reply and ordered that the matter be listed before an appropriate non-miscellaneous Bench for further hearing.

Case Title: DIGITAL NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana

Hearing Date: October 27, 2026