Eurasia Review: Chennai: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
Reporters Without Borders points out that whistle-blowers will be deterred by the requirement that the Right to Information Act can be invoked only with the express permission of the subject of enquiry.
Reporters Without Borders
(RSF) has slammed India’s new data protection law in its latest report on
freedom of information. The report points out that whistle- blowers will be
deterred by the requirement that the Right to Information Act can be invoked only
with the express permission of the subject of enquiry.
The report for 2025-26 noted that there has been a deterioration in more than 60% of states — 110 out of 180 and is notably the case in India (157th), Egypt (169th), Israel (116th) and Georgia (135th).
“The criminalisation of journalism, which is rooted in circumventing press law and misusing emergency legislation and common law, is proving to be a global phenomenon,” RSF said.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act
The report recalled that twenty years ago, India improved transparency in public life with the Right to Information Act (RTI), which allows citizens and journalists to access and use certain types of personal data, provided the “larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
However, in November 2025, the government published new rules to accompany the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act). The new legal framework directly undermines the fundamentals of journalism by restricting access to, processing of, and publication of certain types of information that could be of interest to the public, starting with administrative documents, public archives, and all other information that could implicate public officials or institutions entrusted with a mission of general interest, the report said.
The most striking part of the new rules is that if journalists were investigating someone, they would be legally required to inform that person about the information being collected or used. This requirement would seriously hinder investigative reporting and could discourage whistleblowers from coming forward, RSF said.
Case in the Supreme Court
In response to this new threat to the right to information, The Reporters’ Collective, alongside several civil society organisations, journalists, and transparency advocates, filed petitions with the Indian Supreme Court to challenge these provisions.
The petitioners told the Court that the effectiveness of the RTI Act rests on two foundational principles: (1) that personal or sensitive information may be disclosed where a demonstrable public interest justifies such disclosure; and (2) that public authorities cannot invoke privacy or confidentiality as a blanket cover to shield illegality, corruption, or abuse of power.
The petitioners pointed out that investigations into corruption and maladministration often rely on access to records such as personnel files, asset disclosures, inspection reports, file notations, sanction orders, tender documents, and official correspondence. Almost all such records contain some element of personal information.
Before the enactment of the DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, such information was disclosable where the public interest in transparency outweighed the individual’s privacy interest, as specified in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Petitioners submitted that the freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, and the right to information are core fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
“This Hon’ble Court has consistently held that a free, independent, fearless, and robust press is essential to constitutional democracy and informed public participation,” they pointed out.
The investigative work undertaken by the Petitioners is not carried out in isolation and is fundamentally dependent on the active assistance of on-ground reporters, citizens, researchers, whistleblowers, RTI activists, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders, without whose participation such journalism would be impossible.
These actors help the Petitioners perform their journalistic functions by collecting data through lawful and recognised means, including the use of (i) RTI, (ii) document-based investigations, (iii) source-led reporting, and (iv) independent verification of information in the public interest.
“Several of these efforts, undertaken through collaborative and lawful means of collecting data for public purposes, including for journalistic purposes, have resulted in landmark investigative projects that have brought issues of grave public concern to light. Such petitions are of the utmost importance for Indian democracy as the case will determine whether and how the right to privacy can be invoked to restrict press freedom and citizens’ right to information,” the petitioners said.
The first hearing before the Indian Supreme Court took place on 23 March 2026, and the next is scheduled for 13 May.
Commenting on this, Celia Mercier, Head of RSF’s South Asia Desk, said, “The protection of personal information must not become a pretext for shielding government actions from scrutiny by journalists. RSF calls on the Indian government to amend the rules concerning the implementation of the DPDP Act to ensure they are compatible with press freedom and the right to information. Processing personal data for public interest purposes must be explicitly exempted from the restrictions and penalties applicable to other uses of such information. Without these safeguards, the law risks not only further weakening the press but depriving Indian citizens of their fundamental right to information.”
Reporters Without Borders points out that whistle-blowers will be deterred by the requirement that the Right to Information Act can be invoked only with the express permission of the subject of enquiry.
The report for 2025-26 noted that there has been a deterioration in more than 60% of states — 110 out of 180 and is notably the case in India (157th), Egypt (169th), Israel (116th) and Georgia (135th).
“The criminalisation of journalism, which is rooted in circumventing press law and misusing emergency legislation and common law, is proving to be a global phenomenon,” RSF said.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act
The report recalled that twenty years ago, India improved transparency in public life with the Right to Information Act (RTI), which allows citizens and journalists to access and use certain types of personal data, provided the “larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
However, in November 2025, the government published new rules to accompany the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act). The new legal framework directly undermines the fundamentals of journalism by restricting access to, processing of, and publication of certain types of information that could be of interest to the public, starting with administrative documents, public archives, and all other information that could implicate public officials or institutions entrusted with a mission of general interest, the report said.
The most striking part of the new rules is that if journalists were investigating someone, they would be legally required to inform that person about the information being collected or used. This requirement would seriously hinder investigative reporting and could discourage whistleblowers from coming forward, RSF said.
Case in the Supreme Court
In response to this new threat to the right to information, The Reporters’ Collective, alongside several civil society organisations, journalists, and transparency advocates, filed petitions with the Indian Supreme Court to challenge these provisions.
The petitioners told the Court that the effectiveness of the RTI Act rests on two foundational principles: (1) that personal or sensitive information may be disclosed where a demonstrable public interest justifies such disclosure; and (2) that public authorities cannot invoke privacy or confidentiality as a blanket cover to shield illegality, corruption, or abuse of power.
The petitioners pointed out that investigations into corruption and maladministration often rely on access to records such as personnel files, asset disclosures, inspection reports, file notations, sanction orders, tender documents, and official correspondence. Almost all such records contain some element of personal information.
Before the enactment of the DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, such information was disclosable where the public interest in transparency outweighed the individual’s privacy interest, as specified in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Petitioners submitted that the freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, and the right to information are core fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
“This Hon’ble Court has consistently held that a free, independent, fearless, and robust press is essential to constitutional democracy and informed public participation,” they pointed out.
The investigative work undertaken by the Petitioners is not carried out in isolation and is fundamentally dependent on the active assistance of on-ground reporters, citizens, researchers, whistleblowers, RTI activists, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders, without whose participation such journalism would be impossible.
These actors help the Petitioners perform their journalistic functions by collecting data through lawful and recognised means, including the use of (i) RTI, (ii) document-based investigations, (iii) source-led reporting, and (iv) independent verification of information in the public interest.
“Several of these efforts, undertaken through collaborative and lawful means of collecting data for public purposes, including for journalistic purposes, have resulted in landmark investigative projects that have brought issues of grave public concern to light. Such petitions are of the utmost importance for Indian democracy as the case will determine whether and how the right to privacy can be invoked to restrict press freedom and citizens’ right to information,” the petitioners said.
The first hearing before the Indian Supreme Court took place on 23 March 2026, and the next is scheduled for 13 May.
Commenting on this, Celia Mercier, Head of RSF’s South Asia Desk, said, “The protection of personal information must not become a pretext for shielding government actions from scrutiny by journalists. RSF calls on the Indian government to amend the rules concerning the implementation of the DPDP Act to ensure they are compatible with press freedom and the right to information. Processing personal data for public interest purposes must be explicitly exempted from the restrictions and penalties applicable to other uses of such information. Without these safeguards, the law risks not only further weakening the press but depriving Indian citizens of their fundamental right to information.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
