/socialsamosa/media/agency_attachments/PrjL49L3c0mVA7YcMDHB.png)
/socialsamosa/media/media_files/2025/11/12/yearbook-2025-11-12-14-50-28.jpg)
Follow Us/socialsamosa/media/media_files/2025/11/25/fi-4-2025-11-25-15-50-21.png)
The Press Club of India has raised objections to the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules notified under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, saying the framework could affect journalistic work, weaken transparency mechanisms and place news organisations under unclear compliance requirements.
The rules, notified on November 15, outline procedures for content managers, data retention, processing of children’s data, and obligations for significant data fiduciaries, along with exemptions for the state.
The club’s concerns align with those raised earlier by the Editors Guild of India and the DIGIPUB News India Foundation, which argue that the rules risk diluting the Right to Information framework and may have implications for press freedom. In a statement, the Press Club said it had made repeated attempts to flag issues to the government but was met with “a wall of obfuscation from the executive.”
According to the club, it joined 22 other press bodies in submitting a detailed joint memorandum to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in June 2025. The memorandum highlighted what the groups described as “serious lacunas” in the law that could “impinge on press freedom and directly hit Article 19(1).”
Press Club of India expresses anguish against the manner in which the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (@GoI_MeitY) notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act, 2023).
— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 24, 2025
We hope that better… pic.twitter.com/VAX5E3MQRA
The club said the intention was not to seek repeal of the law but to request clear exemptions for those performing journalistic duties.
The submission also pointed to broad definitions in the Act that, the club argued, could allow “numerous possibilities of weaponisation of the law,” potentially affecting the ability of journalists to function freely. The organisations included examples from working reporters to demonstrate how certain provisions could deter reporting in the public interest.
The Press Club and the Indian Women’s Press Corps later sent a set of 35 questions to a senior official in the ministry on July 28, seeking clarity on multiple sections of the Act and how they would apply to journalistic work.
The club said both the memorandum and the FAQs stressed that changes to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act through Section 44 of the DPDP Act were “detrimental to the functioning of the press,” noting that the original RTI provision had been an important tool for accessing public-interest information.
The club said it has “a long and distinguished history of expanding and upholding press freedom,” citing its role during the Emergency and its protest against the Defamation Bill in 1988. It added that journalists had “walked the extra yard” to flag concerns with the data protection law.
Despite these efforts, the Press Club said the government has not offered “legally binding assurances” that provisions of the law would not be used to restrict press activity. It accused the government of acting as “the judge, jury, and executioner,” and urged authorities to provide specific exemptions for journalistic work from what it described as ambiguous provisions of the Act.