The Centre for Internet and Society’s comments and feedback to the: Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025

Rule 3 - Notice given by data fiduciary to data principal - Under Section 5(2) of the DPDP Act, when the personal data of the data principal has been processed before the commencement of the Act, then the data fiduciary is required to give notice to the data principal as soon as reasonably practicable. However, the Rules fail to specify what is meant by reasonably practicable. The timeline for a notice in such circumstances is unclear.

• In addition, under Rule 3(a) the phrase “be presented and be understandable independently” is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the consent notice has to be presented independently of any other information or whether it only needs to be independently understandable and can be presented along with other information.
• In addition to this we suggest that the need for “privacy by design” mentioned in the earlier drafts is brought back, with the focus on preventing deceptive design practices (dark patterns)  being used while collecting data.

Rule 4 - Registration and obligations of Consent Manager- The concept of independent consent managers, similar to account aggregators in the financial sector, and consent manager platforms in the EU is a positive step. However, the Act and the Rules need to flesh out the interplay between the Data Fiduciary and the Consent Managers in a more detailed manner, for example, how does the data fiduciary know if a data principal is using a consent manager, and under what circumstances can the data fiduciary bypass the consent manager, what is the penalty/consequence, etc.

Rule 6 - Reasonable security safeguards - While we appreciate the guidance provided in terms of the measures for security such as “encryption, obfuscation or masking or the use of virtual tokens”, it would also be good to refer to the SPDI Rules and include the example of the The international Standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001 on Information Technology - Security Techniques - Information Security Management System as an illustration to guide data fiduciaries.

Rule 7 - Intimation of personal data breach - As per the Rules, the data fiduciary on becoming aware of any personal data breach is required to notify the data principal and the Data Protection Board without delay; a plain reading of this Rule suggests that data fiduciary has to report the breach almost immediately, and this could be a practical challenge. Further, the absence of any threshold (materiality, gravity of the breach, etc) for notifying the data principal means that the data fiduciary will have to inform the data principal about even an isolated data breach which may not have an impact on the data principal. In this context, we recommend the Rule be amended to state that the data fiduciary should be required to inform the Data Protection Board about every data breach, however the data principal should be informed depending on the gravity and materiality of the breach and when it is likely to result in high risk to the data principal.

• Whilst the Rules have provisions for intimation of data breach, there is no specific provision requiring the Data Fiduciary to take all steps necessary to ensure that the Data Fiduciary has taken all necessary measures to mitigate the risk arising out of the said breach. Although there is an obligation to report any such measures to the Data Principal (Rule 7(1)(c)) as well as to the DPBI (Rule 7(2)(b)(iii)), there is no positive obligation imposed on the Data Fiduciary to take any such mitigation measures. The Rules and the Act merely presume that the Data Fiduciary would take mitigation measures, perhaps that is the reason why there are notification requirements for such breach, however the Rules and the Act do not put any positive obligation on the Data Fiduciary to actually implement such measures. This would lead to a situation where a Data Fiduciary may not take any measures to mitigate the risks arising out of the data breach, and be in compliance with its legal obligations by merely notifying the Data Principal as well as the DPBI that no measures have been taken to mitigate the risks arising from the data breach. In addition, the SPDI Rules state that in an event of a breach the body corporate is required to demonstrate that they had implemented reasonable security standards. This provision could be incorporated in this Rule to emphasize on the need to implement robust security standards which is one of the ways to curb data breaches from happening, and ensure that there is a protocol to mitigate the breach.

Rule 10 - Verifiable consent for processing of personal data of child or of person with disability who has a lawful guardian - The two mechanisms provided under the Rules to verify the age and identity of parents pre-suppose a high degree of digital literacy on the part of the parents. They may either give or refuse consent without thinking too much about the consequences arising out of giving or not giving consent. As there is always a risk of individuals not providing the correct information regarding their age or their relationship with the child, platforms may have to verify every user’s age; thereby preventing users from accessing the platform anonymously. Further, there is also a risk of data maximisation of personal data rather than data minimisation; i.e parents may be required to provide far more information than required to prove their identity. One recommendation/suggestion that we propose is to remove the processing of children's personal data from the ambit of this law, and instead create a separate standalone legislation dealing with children’s digital rights. Another important issue to highlight here is the importance of the Digital Protection Board and its capacity to levy fines and impose strictures on the platforms. We have seen from examples from other countries that platforms are forced to redesign and provide for better privacy and data protection mechanisms when the regulator steps in and imposes high penalties

Rule 12 - Additional obligations of Significant Data Fiduciary - The Rules do not clarify which entities will be considered as a Significant Data Fiduciary, leaving that to the government notifications. This creates uncertainty for data fiduciaries, especially smaller organisations that might not be able to set up the mechanisms and people for conducting data protection impact assessment, and auditing. The Rule provides that SDFs will have to conduct an annual Data Protection Impact Assessment. While this is a step in the right direction, the Rules are currently silent on the granularity of the DPIA. Similarly for “audit” the Rules do not clarify what type of audit is needed and what the parameters are. It is therefore imperative that the government notifies the level of details that the DPIA and the audit need to go into in order to ensure that the SDFs actually address issues where their data governance practices are lacking and not use the DPIA as a whitewashing tactic.There is also a  need to reduce some of the ambiguity with regards to the parameters, and responsibilities in order to make it easier for startups and smaller players to comply with the regulations.  In addition, while there is a need to protect data and increase responsibility on organisations collecting sensitive data or large volumes of data, there is a need to look beyond compliance and look at ways that preserve the rights of the data principal. Hence significant data fiduciaries should also be given the added responsibility of collecting explicit consent from the data principal, and also have easier access for correction of data, grievance redressal and withdrawal of consent.

Rule 14 - Processing of personal data outside India - As per section 16 of the Act the government could, by notification, restrict the transfer of data to specific countries as notified. This system of a negative list envisaged under the Act appears to have been diluted somewhat by the use of the phrase “any foreign State” under the Rules. This ambiguity should be addressed and the language in the Rules may be altered to bring it in line with the Act. Further, the rules also appear to be ultra vires to the Act. As per the DPDP Act, personal data could be shared to outside India, except to countries which were on the negative list, however, the dilution of the provision through the rules appears to have now created a white list of countries; i.e. permissible list of countries to which data can be transferred.

Rule 15 Exemption from Act for research, archiving or statistical purposes- While creating an exception for research and statistical purposes is an understandable objective, the current wording of the provision is vague and subject to mischief. The objective behind the provision is to ensure that research activities are not hindered due to the requirements of taking consent, etc. as required under the Act. However the way the provision is currently drafted, it could be argued that a research lab or a research centre established by a large company, for e.g. Google, Meta, etc. could also seek exemptions from the provisions of this Act for conducting “research”. The research conducted may not be shared with the public in general and may be used by the companies that funded/established the research centre. Therefore there should be further conditions attached to this provision, that would keep such research centers outside the purview of the exemption. Conditions such as making the results of the research publicly available, public interest, etc. could be considered for this purpose.

Rule 22 - Calling for Information from data fiduciary or intermediary - This rule read with the seventh schedule appears to dilute the data minimisation and purpose limitation provisions provided for in the Act. The wide ambit of powers appears to be in contravention of the Supreme Court judgement in the Puttaswamy case, which places certain restrictions on the government while collecting personal data. This “omnibus” provision flouts guardrails like necessity and proportionality that are important to safeguard the fundamental right to privacy.

It should be clarified whether this rule is merely an enabling provision to facilitate sharing of information, and only designated competent authorities as per law can avail of this provision. Need for Confidentiality

Additionally, the rule mandates that the government may “require the Data Fiduciary or intermediary to not disclose” any request for information made under the Act. There is no requirement of confidentiality indicated in the governing section, i.e. section 36, from which Rule 22 derives its authority. Talking about the avoidance of secrecy in government business, the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428 has held that
“In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussions on public security (2). To cover with [a] veil [of] secrecy the common routine business, is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for the purpose of parties and politics or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.”
In order to ensure that state interests are also protected, there may be an enabling provision whereby in certain instances confidentiality may be maintained, but there has to be a supervisory mechanism whereby such action may be judged on the anvil of legal propriety.