New Delhi - The recently passed Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, has sparked considerable criticism, with concerns raised that it could potentially undermine the field of journalism in India.

A point of contention lies in the possibility that the Bill might compel journalists to divulge their sources to the government. Furthermore, it grants the government the authority to censor news stories on vague grounds, and it could complicate the process of accessing government records via the Right to Information Act. These apprehensions have been articulated in statements issued earlier this week by the Editors Guild of India and Digipub, a consortium of independent digital media organizations.

Of particular concern is Clause 36 within the Bill, which stipulates that the Union government can demand "any such information as it may call for" from any data fiduciary. According to the Bill, a "data fiduciary" pertains to any entity that processes personal data and is thus subject to the Bill's obligations. When applied to news organizations or journalists, this clause could conceivably encompass sensitive data to which journalists have gained access, as well as details about sources and whistle-blowers who may be in communication with journalists. This could also encompass information about donors and subscribers to media establishments.

Namrata Maheshwari, Asia Pacific Policy Counsel at Access Now, a nonprofit organization advocating for digital rights globally, cautioned about the expanded state power to obtain information: "This puts journalists’ sources at risk. This poses a danger to investigative journalism and independent media."

The Bill also introduces provisions for censorship. It empowers the government to block public access to content created by journalists or news organizations that have been monetarily penalized for violating data fiduciary provisions at least twice in the past. This blocking authority is initiated upon a recommendation from the Data Protection Board of India established by the Bill. This mechanism, according to technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary, presents a parallel content blocking and takedown process similar to the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Under these rules, the Centre has the capacity to order the blocking of online content, a power that critics argue has been frequently overused.

Experts in digital rights have characterized this aspect of the Bill as a veiled form of censorship. Maheshwari pointed out that the lack of oversight on the exercise of this censorship power is concerning. Prateek Waghre, Policy Director at the Internet Freedom Foundation, also shared these concerns, suggesting that this provision could potentially be exploited to target news media organizations, particularly in the present political climate.

The Bill's impact extends to the Right to Information Act, as it curtails access to personal information. This undermining of the Right to Information Act has been criticized for hindering the crucial role it plays in facilitating the work of journalists and activists in uncovering public-interest information. Choudhary emphasized that data protection doesn't necessitate amendments to the Right to Information Act, while Maheshwari lamented the implications of such changes, highlighting that reporting has historically relied on the Act without compromising personal information.

Waghre echoed these concerns, foreseeing a significant reduction in the information accessible under the Right to Information Act due to the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023.