The Editors Guild of India has expressed ‘grave concerns’ over the impact of the Data Protection Act on journalistic activities in the country, in a letter to the Centre.

The letter, addressed to the Union Ministry for Electronics and Information Technology, said several provisions of the bill could pose a challenge to investigative journalism and the safety of journalists as well as curtail freedom of the press.

In the seven-page document, the EGI has laid out its concerns about the Data Protection Act, was passed by the Parliament in August last year, and will come into effect sometime this year, with the Union government expected to announce the exact date soon.

Referring to a free press as the fourth pillar of democracy, the letter reads, “The DPDPA, while a laudable initiative towards protecting the personal data of individuals, if applied indiscriminately to the processing of personal data in a journalistic context, will bring journalism in the country to a standstill. This will have a long-standing impact on the freedom of the press, and the dissemination of information not just in reporting in print, TV, and the internet, but also the mere issuance of press releases by all parties including political parties.”

As a large part of the Act pertains to privacy and consents that both private and government entities must seek from citizens before accessing their data, the letter opined that this would hamper investigative journalism activities as under the proposed law, journalists would be obliged to seek permissions from entities that they may be investigating over matters as diverse as frauds and Ponzi schemes to political interference and the purchasing of patronage.

The letter stated, “Journalists and media organisations would consequently have to notify data principals of the proposed processing prior to or at the time of requesting consent. As indicated above, purpose specification (a necessary component of such a notice), particularly at a nascent stage in a journalistic context is infeasible, and may (in the case of investigative journalism) even defeat the purpose of undertaking such processing. Obtaining consent (including obtaining verifiable consent from the parent or lawful guardian of a child or a person with a disability) presents similar problems. For instance, when a journalist is investigating the parties involved in a fraudulent / Ponzi scheme, reporting on road accidents in a particular city, or publishing information about the achievement of an individual who is a resident of another city, the requirement to provide notice and obtain consent would not only be impractical or infeasible but will likely defeat the purpose of the journalistic endeavour, by causing inordinate delay or impeding the journalist from publishing the news report itself.”

The EGI letter asked for exemptions for journalists with regards to certain parts of the bill, stating, “We strongly urge the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Ministry) to ensure that processing for journalistic purposes is exempted from the application of the DPDPA. Indeed, the tools for doing so are built into the DPDPA itself. Under section 17(5) of the DPDPA, the Government may, before the expiry of five years from the date of commencement of the DPDPA, by notification, declare that any provision of this DPDPA will not apply to any data fiduciary or classes of data fiduciaries for a period specified in the notification. An exemption may be necessary to stop harassment of journalists by inundating them with requests with a view of blocking or slowing down the investigation or publishing of a piece of news. The financial and human resource implications of compliance with such requests will also frustrate journalistic activity, especially in the case of independent journalists.”