The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has challenged the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and its Rules before the Supreme Court, which has issued notice. The editorial argues that the absence of a journalism exemption, together with the dilution of the RTI Act’s public-interest override, risks a chilling effect on investigative reporting into public officials.

• The missing exemption: drafts in 2018, 2019 and 2021 exempted journalistic processing; the 2023 Act does not, although it exempts processing for research and statistical purposes. Reporters could be treated as data fiduciaries obliged to notify, and seek consent from, those they investigate.
• Disproportionate penalties: fines of up to ₹250 crore pose an existential risk to small and independent newsrooms.
• The RTI amendment: removing the public-interest test limits access to records such as asset declarations and tender documents, on which corruption investigations depend.
• Who is a journalist? With 39% of 18–24-year-olds citing social media as their main news source in 2025 (up from 21% in 2015, per a Reuters Institute report), drawing legal categories is difficult.
• Way out: a consensus framework in which public functionaries and handlers of public funds cannot use privacy to avoid scrutiny; the Government’s offer to meet editors is welcomed.

• The State’s view: the Government says the Act does not intend to curb journalism and that constitutional protection already applies; it has indicated willingness to amend the law if needed.
• Privacy concerns are real too: media practices such as publishing private details of individuals, or doxxing, can cause harm; any exemption needs clear limits — for example, a public-interest test — rather than a blanket carve-out.
• Judicial balancing on RTI: the Supreme Court has treated some personal information of public servants as exempt (Girish Deshpande, 2012) while requiring case-by-case balancing (CPIO, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019) — the public-interest test was the tool for that balance.
• Comparative practice: the EU’s GDPR (Article 85) requires member states to reconcile data protection with journalistic, academic and artistic expression.

An agreement signed on 22 September 2026 by the United States, Denmark and Greenland expands the American military presence in Greenland while reaffirming Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. The author argues it ends a diplomatic stand-off over U.S. interest in acquiring the island, but marks the start — not the end — of a deeper contest over the Arctic.

• Security, not territory: the U.S. has moved away from seeking to acquire Greenland and has instead secured expanded military access.
• Denmark’s balancing act: protecting sovereignty while avoiding prolonged confrontation with its main ally.
• Unresolved sovereignty questions: extensive foreign military access and investment restrictions sit uneasily with self-determination, especially as some provisions outlive a possible independence.
• A transformed Arctic: no longer only about climate science, but about missile defence, minerals, shipping routes and space security — and competition can strain relations even among allies.

• A pragmatic outcome: supporters see the deal as defusing an alliance crisis while strengthening North Atlantic defence against Russian activity.
• Self-determination concerns: Greenlandic voices emphasise that decisions on land, resources and defence should reflect their consent; parliamentary approval in Nuuk will test this.
• Securitisation of economics: investment screening may deter non-Western capital but also narrows Greenland’s economic options as it seeks financial autonomy from Denmark.
• Wider lesson: as with other strategic territories, the line between security partnership and dependence depends on transparency, consent and reciprocal benefits.