New Delhi, Oct 28 Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw on Wednesday rejected concerns that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act could constrain investigative journalism, asserting that the Constitution’s guarantee of press freedom remains paramount and inviting editors and media professionals to discuss their concerns with the government.
“Journalistic freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. That freedom is absolutely available. There is not even an intention to affect the journalistic freedom,” Vaishnaw said, maintaining that the privacy law fully preserves the constitutional guarantee of media independence.
“There should be no doubt about it,” he said, adding that the government was willing to hear concerns and consider suggestions if any clarification or corrective action was needed.
“I am inviting all editors, media persons to come and have a clear open dialogue with us. We will be very happy to explain, and if there is any doubt, we are happy to take on record any suggestion and act if there is a need to,” he said.
The minister’s remarks came amid a legal challenge by news publishers over the law’s potential implications for reporting on matters of public interest. Publishers have argued that the absence of an explicit exemption for journalistic activities could complicate investigations involving personal information collected without the consent of the individuals concerned, while raising concerns about confidential sources and the retention of material relevant to public-interest reporting.
Separately, sources indicated that the government would be open to amending the law to explicitly safeguard journalistic activity and address concerns. Vaishnaw did not speak about any amendments.
Vaishnaw said the DPDP Act followed a Supreme Court judgment recognising the right to privacy as a fundamental right and was framed after more than a year of consultations involving newspapers, television channels, media representatives, the information technology industry and other stakeholders.
“The privacy laws have been enacted as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment, where the right to privacy was defined as a fundamental right,” he said.
Parliament had, in effect, translated that judgment into legislation, he added.
During the consultation process, the government had explained that the legislation would not undermine press freedom, Vaishnaw said.
“It was clearly explained that provisions of the DPDP Act nowhere infringe upon freedom of the press, journalism and freedom of media,” he said.
He argued that the constitutional guarantee of press freedom could not be overridden by data-protection legislation, distinguishing the misuse of private information from its legitimate use in journalism.
“Data privacy does not mean you can’t break something into news. That is not the meaning of data privacy,” he said in remarks that were not on the record.
“Freedom for journalists comes from the constitution. That power of the Constitution cannot be diminished by any law.”
A government source, speaking on the condition that the remarks not be attributed, indicated that an amendment could be considered if an explicit statutory safeguard for journalism were deemed necessary.
Asked whether the government would be open to writing such a protection directly into the law, the source said an amendment was possible and that the Centre was willing to discuss the matter.
The dispute centres not only on the government’s stated intent but also on whether the law provides sufficiently clear legal protection for journalistic work. Publishers contend that an explicit exemption would reduce uncertainty over how requirements relating to notice, consent and the processing of personal data might apply to investigative reporting.
The source also argued that the right to privacy should be understood in the context of the law and the Constitution, rather than as a blanket prohibition on the use of personal information.
Vaishnaw said he was familiar with the legislative history of the privacy framework, having been involved in parliamentary deliberations on earlier versions of the legislation before taking charge of its redrafting as minister.
He said press freedom had been a consideration during that process.
Referring to earlier discussions with the Editors Guild, he said the government had explained why it believed the law did not restrict journalistic freedom, and reiterated his willingness to meet editors formally.
(PTI News)
