Defining India’s Data Future: Key Imperatives in the DPDP Act

It has become less of an option to be unconcerned with privacy as adoption of digital services accelerates across India. The newly promulgated Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act is a good start, provided its implementation is sound. Based on my own research, in Parliament and in the public sphere, here are six areas that need to be addressed:

 1. ⚖️ The Importance of Federalism:

Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said it was important to respect the role of  “states as separate and independent sovereigns” in a federal system.

India’s digital space is federative, and a lot of data is collected under state schemes - like Odisha’s Konnect KALIA and Antyodaya Saral. But the Act is centrist in terms of control and makes the Centre the supreme rule maker. If we don't empower the states somewhere, we will end up with a bottleneck and inefficiency at the level of redress.

Our suggestion: Set up state Data Protection Authorities in addition to the one at the centre to be more responsive and ensure decentralised oversight.

2. 🏛️Independence of the Institutions 

Structural autonomy is needed for data governance. The National Data Protection Board should be insulated from political interference, much like how the RTI system or consumer redressal bodies are.

My submission: Ground the authority in constitutional safeguards - fixed tenure, security of tenure, financial self-reliance, and judicial leadership - to ensure a mix of rigour and trust in its decisions.

3. 👁️ Transparency and the Clarity of Scope

The existing exception rules on cross-border data flows and legal carve-outs are too vague. The Bill permits flow to “trusted jurisdictions” without specifying which jurisdictions these are, and government access is still broadly formulated.

What needs clarity:

• List “sufficient” jurisdictions and models.

• Tighten “legitimate government” exceptions with a public-facing dashboard and audits on a regular basis.

4. 🎯 Pose-Based Data Regulation 

Governments' regulation of data have varied in their approaches.

At the moment, the Act has specific penalties for breaches, but no definitions for non-financial losses such as reputational harm or distress which are particularly pertinent to women and other vulnerable people.

Recommendation: Define harm so that it includes privacy, emotional, or digital dignity violations necessary for meaningful redress.

5.🧩 Harmonizing Sectoral Laws

Conflicts / Discordance between the DPDP Act and sectoral laws (ex: RBI’s data localisation, SEC guidelines) pose a threat to regulatory consistency.

We need:

• Well-defined conflict-resolution processes.

• Clear cross-referencing or a court of appeal to consolidate data jurisprudence.

6. 📌 Data Minimization by Default

Failure to have a data-minimization provision creates risk of over-preservation and misuse.

Immediate action required: Ensure data processing is minimised to necessity-no privacy-justified profiling-by-default.

In Summary

The DPDP Act is a historic move-but its real test lies in:

This is not just a data law-it’s a trust pact with citizens. Let's ensure it empowers individuals, upholds democracy, and fuels India’s responsible digital future.

Feel free to engage and share your views. I welcome collaborations aimed at strengthening India’s digital rights.