An interesting debate has ensued about the impact of DPDPA on the Journalists. The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has sent a representation to the Minister Mr Ashwini Vaishnav noting its objections on the Act which was passed more than an year back in August 2023 .
The objections have been well articulated by MediaNama in its article here. The article also provides a link to the copy of the representation made by EGI. Many other websites and NGOs have started stating “Press Freedom at risk”(Citizens for Justice and peace), “Concern over impact..” (greaterkashmir.com) etc.
The letter essentially says
“The fundamental role of the press and its ability to ensure transparency and accountability would be severely undermined by the data principal’s ability to simply refuse consent to the processing of their data.” Accordingly, the EGI has sought exemption to data fiduciaries undertaking processing for journalistic purposes .
We must appreciate that as a representative body of the Journalists, EGI has every right and perhaps even a duty to represent their concerns.
In fact, FDPPI has actually organized the event “Voice of the Industry on DPDPA Rules” on July 27 to keep industries informed about the upcoming DPDPA Rules and how they should be prepared to meet the regulations. This event is also expected to collate the views of the industry on the proposed rules and present it to MeitY with an object of getting proper clarifications where required or to suggest solutions where required. (eg: The solution to the Age-gating problem presented in yesterday’s article)
The main issue that confronts the implementation of DPDPA is that it is a regulation for the whole canvas of “Digital Personal Data Collectors, Processors and Disclosers”. It includes Journalists as well as every other profession including Medical Doctors, Law firms, Chartered Accountant firms etc. It includes the State Bank of India or the Apollo Hospital chain as much as the street side co-operative bank or my family doctor.
Some of the professionals like Journalists work as part of an organization in which case the organization will be a Data Fiduciary and the professional would be an employee. But when such a professional sets up his own business then he himself will become the “Data Fiduciary” and cannot escape liabilities.
It would be difficult to provide wholesale exemptions in which case the law will be amenable to abuse. We have already raised our voice against the concessions that are likely to be provided to organizations like Face Book and Google which will dilute the implementation. Similarly, we need to ensure that because of the “Fear of the Soros Media Group”, Government should not yield and start making concessions without proper application of mind.
Instead the DPB can ensure that while imposing penalties if any, the status of the Data Fiduciary would be taken as a key input.
While we acknowledge the concerns expressed by the EGI, it is necessary to point out that the “Voluntary Provision” and “Legitimate use” provisions are good enough to provide the freedom to the Journalists to go about their journalistic duties. The EGI will definitely be required to ensure that Journalists are properly informed and educated on how to navigate the DPDPA.
I invite the EGI to send their representative to the FDPPI’s event of July 27 at Bengaluru where they can share their concerns and also understand that this is not the exclusive problem of Journalists but it affects several others who are trying to find solutions and not escape from the responsibilities. (visit www.fdppi.in for details on the event)
