Publishers challenge India privacy law at Supreme Court
A coalition of 21 news groups argues the new consent rules force journalists to seek permission before publishing, effectively creating a system of pre-censorship.
By Sakura Novak ·
Twenty-one major news publishers, including outlets owned by India’s wealthiest industrialists, have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a new federal privacy law. The groups argue the legislation functions as a tool of pre-censorship by requiring journalists to obtain consent from subjects before they write about them.
The challenge was filed in connection with the Digital News Publishers Association, which represents high-profile media companies. Members include NDTV, owned by billionaire Gautam Adani, and Network18, part of the conglomerate led by Mukesh Ambani. The coalition also includes the Indian Express and Times Internet, the latter being part of the group that publishes India’s largest English-language daily newspaper.
The legal dispute stems from a law passed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. While media executives received verbal assurances in August that the rules would protect press freedom, they were concerned by the lack of a specific written exemption for journalists. Such exemptions exist in the European Union, Singapore, and Britain, but not in the Indian text, according to a filing submitted earlier this month.
Madhavi Goradia Divan, the lawyer for the DNPA, presented the core argument to the justices on Tuesday. She stated that the requirement for consent fundamentally alters how news is produced. “It is changing the whole concept of what is news,” Divan told the court. She warned that if newsrooms must ask for permission to publish, “it’s then a complete regime of pre-censorship.”
The filing details several operational risks for newsrooms. The law allows individuals to withdraw consent and demand data erasure at any time, without a public-interest safeguard. This could force publishers to unpublish or redact factual reports. The DNPA also pointed out that a federal authority can impose fines for noncompliance and block access to information in the “interests of the general public.”
Starting next year, the law will permit New Delhi to order any organization handling personal data to provide information on demand. The publishers argue this power is “nakedly unguided” and could force newsrooms to reveal confidential sources. They contend the rule may deter whistleblowers from sharing evidence of corruption or electoral malpractice because their privileged communications with reporters are not protected.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for this case to take place next month. The court has not yet issued a ruling on the merits of the privacy provisions as they apply to the press.
