An association representing 21 of India’s leading news organizations has petitioned the Supreme Court to invalidate key provisions of a new privacy law, warning the legislation could severely hinder investigative journalism and force many newsrooms to shut down. The move marks a significant escalation in opposition to the law, which until now had been chiefly contested by free-speech activists and smaller independent media outlets.
The media coalition behind the challenge includes major players such as Network18 and NDTV, owned by billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, respectively—figures often associated with close ties to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Critics have labeled some outlets in the group as “Godi media,” a term suggesting undue deference to the Modi administration. Their involvement introduces a new dynamic to the legal battle surrounding the law, which is set to take effect in May.
Lawyers for the Digital News Publishers Association argued at a court hearing on Tuesday that the law effectively imposes a “complete regime of pre-censorship” on journalists. They contend that it treats news organizations merely as commercial entities, requiring reporters to seek explicit consent from individuals before publishing stories about them. This could compel journalists to obtain permission from politicians, business leaders, and other influential figures, and even allow those subjects to demand the removal of published material by withdrawing consent.
“What is the point if I have to ask for permission and for consent?” said Madhavi Divan, representing the group. “The law is changing the whole concept of what is news.” The association warns that these requirements could make rigorous investigative reporting untenable.
Concerns about press freedom in India have grown since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014, amid mounting legal and regulatory pressures on journalists, physical attacks, online harassment, and increasing constraints on independent reporting. The privacy law, initially drafted in 2018 to address gaps in data protection, has been criticized for excluding exemptions for news-gathering activities that were present in earlier drafts. Critics argue the vague language in the law grants government agencies broad discretion to bypass legal safeguards.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, one of three judges presiding over the case, questioned how potential misuse of exemptions could be prevented, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of “innocent citizens” with media freedom. Divan responded that existing legal frameworks already hold journalists accountable for inaccuracies or wrongdoing.
The petition also includes concerns raised by independent journalist Yukta Mudgal, who warned that the law threatens her ability to access public records and utilize India’s right-to-information system, both essential tools for investigative journalism.
The association’s 724-page submission flags additional worries about government powers to demand raw data from newsrooms, potentially compromising confidential sources and whistle-blowers. It also highlights changes in public records regulations that could let authorities withhold information on privacy grounds, undermining efforts to expose corruption.
India currently ranks 157th out of 180 countries on the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, a reflection of increasing challenges faced by the media. Journalistic content removals from social media have also increased this year, with new rules requiring platforms to comply with certain takedown orders within three hours.
The concentration of media ownership among business magnates closely linked to the government has further fueled concerns over editorial independence. Notably, Adani’s 2022 acquisition of NDTV, historically known for critical coverage of the Modi administration, has drawn scrutiny. In a recent related development, an Indian court ordered the removal of “The Friendship Files,” a documentary alleging favoritism by Prime Minister Modi toward Adani, following a defamation suit by Adani Enterprises. The court also directed social media platforms to remove associated posts.
The ongoing Supreme Court review will test the balance between privacy rights and press freedom in one of the world’s largest democracies.