Why Atal Bihari Vajpayee government dropped a terror law clause
Indian Express - Opinion · Published 8 November 2026 · Last updated
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition by digital news publishers challenging the DPDP Act and Rules over threats to journalistic source confidentiality.
Key points
- The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), comprising 21 publishers including The Indian Express, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025.
- The petitioners contended that the statutory framework could compromise investigative journalism and expose journalists' confidential sources.
- A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued a notice seeking a stay on the challenged provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023, and DPDP Rules, 2025.
- The Supreme Court bench has listed the constitutional matter for hearing on November 17, 2026.
- The DNPA highlighted that media companies had received verbal assurances from the Centre in an August 2026 meeting that the law would protect press freedom.
- The publishers argued before the apex court that the absence of a written carve-out for journalists, as present in the European Union, Singapore, and Britain, represents an alarming statutory omission.
- The legal controversy draws parallels to the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) promulgated in 2001 under the Atal Bihari Vajpayee NDA government.
- During the POTO deliberations, media organisations and the parliamentary Opposition successfully pressed for the removal of a controversial provision touching upon the confidentiality of journalists' sources.
- The litigation highlights an enduring institutional friction between state enactments governing national security or data protection and the constitutional safeguards protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sources.
Background
- In 1985, Parliament enacted the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) containing Section 15 on police confessions and Section 17 on detention without charge up to 180 days, which lapsed in 1995.
- The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1999) ruled that admitting confessions made to police officers under TADA violated Article 21 by bypassing judicial custody safeguards.
- In 2001, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government promulgated the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), where media organisations and the Opposition successfully pressed for the removal of a controversial provision.
- Parliament subsequently enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002, retaining Section 15 on confessions to police and Section 20 on detention without charge for up to 180 days.
- The Law Commission of India in its 55th Report on Terrorism Laws (2005) recommended deleting the police-recorded confession provision to preserve voluntariness and ensure all statements are recorded before a magistrate.
- Subsequent apex court decisions in M. S. Sridhar v. Union of India (2006) and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) reaffirmed that evidence obtained through coercion or without judicial custody is constitutionally inadmissible under Article 21.
- The Committee on National Security under NITI Aayog in 2009 endorsed removing Section 15 of POTA, leading the government to issue an amending ordinance in 2010 that removed the confession-to-police provision before POTA was repealed in 2019.
- Today, digital media publishers represented by the DNPA have approached the Supreme Court challenging the DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025 over the absence of statutory exemptions for journalistic sources.
UPSC relevance, Prelims facts and Mains angle for this issue are in the full SWAदेSH note.
Original report: Indian Express - Opinion