Government sources have said journalists and news organisations do not fall under the definition of “data fiduciaries” under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. The clarification comes amid concerns from publishers that the law could affect investigative journalism and public-interest reporting.
New Delhi, November 7 — Journalists and news organisations are not covered under the definition of “data fiduciaries” under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, government sources have said, seeking to address concerns about the law’s possible impact on press freedom and investigative journalism.
According to the sources, the definition of a data fiduciary under the law is “clear” and “proper” and applies to entities such as banks, insurance companies, telecom operators and e-commerce platforms that collect and process personal data.
Journalists and newsrooms do not fall under this definition and, therefore, the rules do not apply to them, the sources said.
What is a data fiduciary?
Under the DPDP Act, a data fiduciary is a person or entity that determines, either independently or jointly with others, the purpose and means of processing personal data.
Data fiduciaries have several obligations under the law.
These include obtaining consent, providing notices to individuals, ensuring the security of personal data, reporting data breaches and erasing information once the purpose for which it was collected has been fulfilled.
The government’s clarification is significant because media organisations have raised concerns about whether these requirements could also apply to journalistic activities.
Concerns over investigative journalism
News publishers have argued that the absence of an explicit exemption for journalism could create difficulties when reporting stories involving personal information.
Investigative journalism can involve obtaining, processing and retaining information about individuals without their consent, particularly when reporting on matters of public interest.
Publishers have also raised concerns about the possible impact on the protection of confidential sources and the preservation of documents and other material required for investigative reporting.
The government sources, however, maintained that journalists and newsrooms are outside the definition of data fiduciaries under the legislation.
Government open to further action
The government has also indicated that it remains open to considering further measures if necessary.
Asked whether an amendment could be introduced to explicitly protect journalistic activities, a government source said authorities remained “very open-minded” and would take whatever action was needed.
Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw had earlier rejected concerns that the DPDP Act could restrict investigative journalism.
He had maintained that the Constitution’s protection of press freedom remained paramount and invited editors and media professionals to discuss their concerns with the government.
The latest clarification therefore seeks to reassure the media industry that journalists and newsrooms are not intended to be treated in the same manner as organisations that collect and process customer data commercially.
However, the source material also indicates that the government remains open to addressing concerns raised by the media industry if further action is considered necessary.
