NEW DELHI: Indian media groups have challenged the government’s privacy law in the Supreme Court, warning that its requirements could severely restrict journalism, undermine investigative reporting and force newsrooms to shut down.
During a hearing on Tuesday, lawyers representing the publishers argued that requiring journalists to obtain consent from people they report on could fundamentally change how news is gathered and published.
The case marks the most high-profile legal challenge to the legislation, which has drawn concerns over its potential impact on press freedom and the ability of journalists to investigate matters of public interest.
Media Groups Warn of Pre-Censorship
Madhavi Goradia Divan, representing the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), told the Supreme Court that the law could transform the nature of news reporting.
“It is changing the whole concept of what is news,” she said.
Divan warned that requiring newsrooms to seek permission before publishing reports could effectively create a system of pre-censorship.
“Newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission,” she told the judges, arguing that the requirements could prevent journalists from reporting on sensitive or controversial issues.
The publishers contend that the legislation could interfere with investigative work and make it more difficult to report on individuals and institutions without their consent.
Ambani and Adani-Owned Media Companies Join Challenge
The legal challenge has been brought by a group of 21 news publishers, including media organisations linked to Indian billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani.
The DNPA includes Ambani-owned Network18, Adani-owned NDTV, The Indian Express and Times Internet, which is part of the Times of India group.
The publishers argue that several provisions of the law could threaten editorial independence and give authorities greater access to information that might reveal journalists’ confidential sources.
According to Reuters, the group filed its challenge after raising concerns that the legislation could interfere with reporting and investigative journalism.
Until now, challenges to the law had largely come from free-speech activists and smaller news organisations. The involvement of major media groups has brought the dispute into sharper focus.
Modi government pushes wider rollout of polarising Uniform Civil Code
Publishers Seek Removal of Contentious Provisions
In a filing earlier this month, the publishers asked the court to strike down most of the law’s disputed provisions, which are scheduled to take effect from May 2027.
They argue that the legislation could force publishers to remove previously published stories and allow the government to demand information that might expose confidential journalistic sources.
The media groups also expressed concern that the law does not provide an explicit exemption for journalists comparable to protections they say exist in jurisdictions such as the European Union, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
Publishers said they had received assurances from the government during an August meeting that press freedom would be protected. However, they remain concerned that those assurances have not been reflected in a written exemption for journalistic activities.
Debate Over Press Freedom in India
The court battle comes amid continuing debate over press freedom in India since Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014.
Critics have accused the government of contributing to a more restrictive environment for independent journalism and have questioned whether major media organisations adequately scrutinise the administration.
The government has rejected allegations that it undermines press freedom and maintains that it respects the role of the media.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the publishers’ challenge could have significant implications for how privacy protections are applied to news reporting, particularly investigative journalism involving public figures and institutions.
With the disputed provisions due to take effect in May 2027, the case is likely to remain an important test of the balance between individual privacy rights and the media’s ability to report on matters of public interest.
