India Media Giants Argue Privacy Law Forces Journalists to Seek Permission

Twenty-one Indian news publishers filed a challenge to the country's new privacy law on Tuesday, arguing that the statute effectively forces journalists to ask subjects for consent before reporting. The group, which includes companies owned by billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, told the Supreme Court that the law amounts to pre-censorship and threatens to shut down newsrooms.

Madhavi Goradia Divan, a lawyer for the Digital News Publishers Association, stated that the rule is changing the concept of news. She warned that if newsrooms must request permission to publish, they enter a complete regime of pre-censorship. The Supreme Court has scheduled to hear the case next month.

The publishers claim that while they received verbal assurances of press freedom protection during an August meeting with the government, the lack of a written exemption similar to those in the European Union, Singapore, and Britain is alarming. The DNPA includes major players such as Ambani's Network18, which operates seven digital platforms, Adani's NDTV, and the Indian Express.

A central concern in the filing is the consent mechanism. The DNPA argues that while social media platforms can seek consent at sign-up, journalists cannot easily do so. Requiring a reporter to notify the subject of an investigation would allow that subject to destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses, the group said.

The law also permits individuals to withdraw consent at any time and demand data erasure without a public-interest safeguard. The DNPA contends this could force members to unpublish or heavily redact factual reports. Additionally, a federal authority created under the law can impose fines for noncompliance and block access to information in the public interest.

Starting next year, the law will allow the central government to order any organization handling personal data to provide specific information. The filing warns this puts newsrooms at risk of having to divulge sources. The DNPA argued this power can extend to privileged communications held by reporters or informants, which may deter whistleblowers from sharing information on corruption or corporate wrongdoing.

The group described the provision as nakedly unguided and asked the court to quash it. They noted that the power to demand information could reach into the private communications of journalists and their sources, further complicating investigative work.