New Delhi: The Union government has carefully evaded answering a parliament question on whether the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 that gives sweeping powers to the central government to access and process data could compel journalists to disclose confidential information and their sources. Responding to a question raised by Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, Jitin Prasada, Minister of State for electronics and information, in a written reply on February 13, only defined the government’s powers under the DPDP Act instead of addressing the question. Brittas had asked “whether digital information pertaining to journalistic privilege and source confidentiality can be compelled to be disclosed by data fiduciary or intermediary” and if there are any safeguards or exemptions under the Act to protect journalistic privilege. Prasada gave a four-pointed response that not only does not answer the direct question but also keeps it so open-ended that the core issue of journalistic privilege to protect their sources remains unaddressed. Prasada said, “The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“the Act”) establishes a principle based, sector-agnostic framework for the protection of digital personal data”, but added that “the Act and the Rules provide that personal data shall be processed only for lawful purposes and on the basis of free, informed, specific and unambiguous consent, accompanied by a notice specifying the nature of personal data collected and the purposes of processing.”However, he also went on to add, “They (the rules) also lay down obligations on Data Fiduciaries to adopt appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance with the Act. The Act provides for specific exemptions from its applications in cases where processing of personal data is necessary for legal enforcement, judicial and regulatory functions, law enforcement purposes, court-approved corporate restructuring, specified cross-border contractual processing, and recovery of financial defaults.”More crucially, he made it clear that only state authorities and data related to research and statistical purposes are exempt from the rules, implying that journalistic sources do not have any protection in the Act. “The Act also empowers the Central Government to exempt the State and its instrumentalities from certain provisions of the Act in the interests of national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, maintenance of public order and allied considerations. It further permits limited exemptions for processing of personal data for research and statistical purposes, subject to prescribed standards,” the ministry’s response said. Brittas later responded to the reply, and told reporters, “The question specifically sought to know whether the Government can compel disclosure of personal data relating to journalists and their confidential sources, and whether any explicit safeguards exist. Instead of answering directly, the Minister merely outlined the “principle-based, sector-agnostic framework” of the Act, without clarifying whether journalistic privilege is protected at all.”He said that the concern over journalistic privilege to protect sources arose from the Section 36 of the Act that grants the Central Government “the power to issue directions to Data Protection Board of India and any Data Fiduciary or intermediary (in effect, to any person or authority) to furnish any information as it may call for.”Moreover, he said that Section 17 that empowers the Central government to exempt state authorities from the provisions of the Act also creates a possibility where journalistic work to expose malpractices in the government will face roadblocks, as the government can stop publication of important news indiscriminately “in the name of protecting sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order”. “Crucially, nowhere in the DPDP Act or the Rules is there an explicit recognition of journalistic privilege or protection of source confidentiality. The Government’s answer does not deny that data fiduciaries or intermediaries may be compelled to disclose data that could reveal journalistic sources,” he said. “In a constitutional democracy, protection of confidential sources is intrinsic to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Government must clarify whether the DPDP regime will respect that principle – or whether broad executive exemptions will override it,” he said.