The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 is proving to be a draconian legislation insofar as the practice of journalism is concerned. The Act mandates across-the-board requirement for journalists to obtain consent before publishing data relating to any person in their reports. This is unnecessarily restrictive and impractical since journalism is about investigation especially when it comes to those holding public office. Asking such persons for their consent before publishing a damaging piece of report goes against the very idea of journalism. The Srikrishna Committee, which drafted the Personal Data Protection Bill 2018 had noted that mandating consent for processing such personal data defies the idea of investigative journalism as the person concerned (data principal) could simply refuse to consent and therefore forestall the publication of news which is in public interest. The primary function of the media is to report facts so that the public are informed of how those in positions of authority – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary discharge their duties so that they are held accountable. In the course of investigative journalism the media comes upon solid evidence of wrongdoing why should it have to get permission from the wrongdoer to publish that information? This Act in its present form undermines the role of the media and erodes the very idea of press freedom.
While media persons get much of their information through the Right to Information route and various sources, that will now be curtailed by the DPDPA, which in turn violates free speech which underlies the practice of journalism. By the time the journalist gets the consent of the wrongdoer, the data holder could have tampered with data and manipulated it, thereby making journalistic pursuits futile. Several media organisations across the country and primarily the Editors’ Guild of India have written to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to exclude journalists from the purview of the DPDPA stating that “the requirements under the DPDPA when applied to journalists are unduly onerous, impractical, and infeasible… in light of the distinct practices involved in journalism when compared to other professions.”
The Guild observed that the protection of personal data in the course of journalistic activities is inbuilt into journalistic conduct, such as those issued by the Press Council of India (PCI), under the Press Council Act 1978, Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards released by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association. The PCI clearly bars journalists from intruding into the privacy of individuals unless it is in overriding public interest. Even recording a conversation demands that the person who speaks gives his consent except when recording is necessary to protect the journalist in a legal action. The Editor’s Guild has asked for “a class exemption to data fiduciaries undertaking processing for journalistic purposes under section 17(5) of the DPDPA. If this exemption is not forthcoming, journalism in this country will be stifled since the penalties for violating the Act runs into crores of rupees. Time for journalists to stand in solidarity against a draconian act aimed at curtailing media freedom.