Ambani, Adani Media Outlets Join 21 Publishers in Challenge to Modi Government’s Privacy Law

News publishers warn India’s data protection law could undermine investigative journalism, expose confidential sources and force media organisations to remove public-interest reports.

A group of 21 Indian news publishers, including media companies owned by billionaires Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, has challenged the country’s new data protection law in the Supreme Court, arguing that its provisions could threaten press freedom, expose confidential journalistic sources and obstruct investigative reporting.

The legal challenge, filed on October 6, questions whether the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act adequately safeguards journalism while protecting citizens’ personal information. The publishers contend that the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activities could force reporters to seek consent from people they investigate and potentially remove published reports when individuals demand that their personal data be erased.

The case, detailed in a confidential filing reviewed by Reuters, represents a high-profile challenge to the privacy framework introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. The petition was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, according to the report.

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents several major media organisations, has argued that the law could weaken investigative journalism by placing restrictions on how newsrooms collect, process and retain personal information. The publishers are seeking the removal of several contentious provisions scheduled to take effect from May 2027.

Why Are Media Houses Challenging the Law?

The publishers’ primary concern centres on consent requirements and the right to request the deletion of personal data.

Under the provisions challenged by the DNPA, individuals can withdraw consent and seek the erasure of their personal data. The association argues that applying these requirements to journalism without adequate public-interest safeguards could compel publishers to remove or substantially redact factual reports, including investigations into alleged wrongdoing.

Requiring journalists to inform an investigation’s subject and obtain consent before processing relevant personal information could also compromise reporting, the filing argues. Such advance notice could give subjects an opportunity to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise interfere with an investigation.

The association warned that these restrictions could reduce investigative journalism to a limited exercise in documenting events rather than uncovering misconduct. It described the contested provisions as a form of pre-censorship incompatible with democratic principles.

Could Journalists’ Sources Be Exposed?

The dispute also raises questions about the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

According to the petition, the law empowers the central government to require organisations handling personal data to provide information it seeks. The publishers fear these powers could expose confidential communications held by newsrooms, including information that identifies whistleblowers and other sources.

Such disclosures could discourage individuals from approaching journalists with evidence of corruption, corporate wrongdoing or electoral malpractice. The DNPA has argued that the provisions lack sufficient safeguards against access to privileged journalistic communications.

The association has also questioned the government’s authority to restrict access to information in the public interest, arguing that broadly framed powers could be used in ways that undermine press freedom.

Ambani and Adani Media Groups Among Petitioners

The DNPA’s members include Network18, owned by Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani, and NDTV, part of the Adani Group led by Gautam Adani. Other prominent members include the Indian Express and Times Internet, associated with the Times of India media group.

The involvement of companies linked to Ambani and Adani makes the challenge particularly notable. Opposition parties have alleged that the two business groups enjoy favourable treatment from the government, accusations both the companies and the government have strongly denied.

The DNPA and the media organisations did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment. India’s information technology ministry also did not respond.

Government Assurances and Press Freedom Concerns

The association said media representatives received assurances during an August meeting with the government that the law would protect press freedom. However, the absence of a written exemption for journalists remained a concern.

The DNPA pointed to protections for journalistic activities in jurisdictions including the European Union, Singapore and the United Kingdom, arguing that India’s framework should similarly recognise the public interest served by independent reporting.

The legal challenge comes amid continuing debate over press freedom in India. Reporters Without Borders ranked the country 157th among 180 countries in its 2026 World Press Freedom Index, down from 140th in 2014. The Indian government has rejected such rankings, maintaining that the country has a vibrant media ecosystem comprising hundreds of newspapers and television channels.

The case brings two important principles into direct contention: an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. While data protection is intended to prevent the misuse of personal information, journalists argue that applying the same rules to investigative reporting without suitable safeguards could make it harder to expose wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the challenge could therefore have significant implications for how Indian news organisations investigate allegations, protect whistleblowers and report matters of public interest under the new privacy regime.