New Delhi: Journalists and news organisations “do not fall” under the definition of ‘data fiduciaries’ under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and are therefore not covered by its provisions, government sources said Saturday, seeking to allay concerns that the legislation could restrict press freedom and investigative journalism.
The definition of a data fiduciary is “clear” and “proper” and covers entities such as banks, insurance companies, telecom operators and e-commerce platforms that collect and process personal data, sources said.
Journalists and newsrooms do not come under the definition of data fiduciary, so the rules do not apply to them, they added.
Sources also indicated that the government has kept its mind open.
Also Read: Anti-liquor protests in Odisha: Women burn equipment in Nabarangpur, villagers demolish house in Nayagada
Asked whether the government had finalised its position on the need for an amendment in law to explicitly safeguard journalistic activities, a source said: “We have always said we are very open-minded on this. Whatever action is needed, we will take it”.
The DPDP Act places obligations on data fiduciaries, defined as persons or entities that determine, alone or jointly with others, the purpose and means of processing personal data.
These include obtaining consent, providing notice to individuals, ensuring data security, reporting personal data breaches and erasing information once the purpose for which it was collected has been fulfilled.
The government’s clarification comes amid concerns among news publishers that the absence of an explicit exemption for journalistic activities could complicate reporting on matters of public interest, particularly investigations involving personal information obtained without the consent of the individuals concerned.
Publishers have argued that the law could create difficulties for investigative journalism, potentially affecting the use and retention of personal data, protection of confidential sources and preservation of material necessary for public-interest reporting.
Last month, Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw had rejected concerns that the DPDP Act could constrain investigative journalism, asserting that the Constitution’s guarantee of press freedom remained paramount. He had also invited editors and media professionals to engage with the government and discuss their concerns.
The government’s latest remarks signal its willingness to consider concerns raised by the media industry, even as it maintains that journalists and newsrooms do not fall under the Act’s definition of data fiduciaries.
