Publishers Ask Top Court to Block India’s Data Consent Rule

Twenty-one Indian news publishers told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the nation’s new privacy law effectively requires journalists to ask permission before publishing stories. The group, which includes media companies owned by billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, filed a challenge against the legislation passed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. They argue the law’s consent requirements will disrupt investigative reporting and allow the state to identify confidential sources.

Madhavi Goradia Divan, the attorney for the Digital News Publishers Association, described the impact of the rule during oral arguments. "It is changing the whole concept of what is news," Divan told the justices. She warned that newsrooms would shut down if reporters had to seek approval from subjects. "It’s then a complete regime of pre-censorship," she said. The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for the case next month.

The publishers cited a filing from earlier this month to explain their concerns. They noted that while the government offered verbal assurances of press freedom protection in August, the law lacks a written exemption for journalists. Such exemptions exist in the European Union, Singapore, and Britain. The DNPA members include Ambani’s Network18, which operates seven digital news platforms, and Adani’s NDTV. The group also includes the Indian Express and Times Internet, the latter being part of the Times of India group, which publishes India’s largest-selling English-language daily.

A central point of contention is the law’s requirement for consent. The DNPA argued that while social media platforms and retailers can collect consent during sign-up, journalists cannot use the same method. Notifying the subject of an investigation would allow that subject to destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses. The law also permits individuals to withdraw consent at any time and demand data erasure. Without a public-interest safeguard, the DNPA said this could force newsrooms to unpublish or redact factual reports.

The filing further criticized the powers granted to a new federal authority. The DNPA stated the authority can impose fines for noncompliance and block access to information in the interest of the general public. Starting next year, the law allows New Delhi to order any organization handling personal data to provide information. The publishers argued this "nakedly unguided" provision could compel newsrooms to divulge sources and deter whistleblowers from sharing details on corruption or electoral malpractice.