DPDP’s Quiet Power Grab: Removal of Difficulties Order Signals a Compliance-Heavy, Litigation-Ready Regime

DPDP Act: From Statute to Operational Reality

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has finally moved from legislative abstraction to enforceable architecture. MeitY’s Digital Personal Data Protection (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2026, issued on 5 October and effective the next day, is not merely technical housekeeping. It is the clearest signal yet that the government intends a compliance-heavy, audit-driven data regime, and that litigation over its constitutional limits is inevitable.

The Order clarifies two critical points: first, the contours of consent for children and persons with disabilities, and second, that the periodic audits mandated for Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) are to be treated as “data audits.” These clarifications, while framed as procedural, carry substantive weight. For practitioners advising platforms, ed-tech, health-tech, and financial entities, the message is unambiguous: consent design and audit trails will be the first battlegrounds of enforcement.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

Under Section 8(1) of the DPDP Act, consent must be “free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous.” The 2026 Order’s clarification on child and disability consent effectively tightens the standard for verifiable consent mechanisms. This is not academic. Any entity processing children’s data—think ed-tech, gaming, social media—must now demonstrate not just consent, but verifiable, guardian-mediated consent with audit-ready records. The Order’s insistence that SDF audits are “data audits” elevates them from internal compliance exercises to regulatory scrutiny tools. Expect the Data Protection Board to demand audit reports as a first step in any inquiry.

The government’s parallel move to bring public bodies into the DPDP fold is equally consequential. The Cabinet Secretary’s August 2026 directive to ministries, states, and UTs to map data processing, appoint senior officers, and review privacy notices is a direct response to criticism that the DPDP Act’s Section 17 exemptions for the State are too broad. By forcing public bodies into a compliance timeline, the government is attempting to blunt the argument that the Act is a surveillance charter. But this is a double-edged sword. Once public bodies are formally within the DPDP framework, their data practices become justiciable. The RTI amendment challenge and the DNPA litigation are early indicators of this trend.

Litigation: Press Freedom and the RTI Amendment

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice in the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenge, while declining an interim stay, is a classic judicial holding pattern. The Court is signaling that the DPDP Act’s press freedom implications are serious enough to warrant full hearing, but not so urgent as to halt the regime before the substantive provisions kick in on 13 May 2027. The DNPA’s core argument—that the DPDP Act and Rules chill investigative journalism by exposing journalists’ sources and data to fiduciary obligations and potential Board action—goes to the heart of the Act’s compatibility with Article 19(1)(a).

The separate challenge to Section 44(3), which amends the RTI Act to exempt personal information from disclosure, is even more fraught. The amendment effectively collapses the RTI’s public interest override for personal data, creating a hierarchy where data protection trumps transparency. This is a constitutional showdown in waiting. The Court’s eventual ruling will determine whether India’s data protection regime is a genuine privacy shield or a statutory cloak for opacity.

What Changes in Practice

For lawyers, the immediate takeaway is that DPDP compliance is no longer a future concern. The Removal of Difficulties Order and the public sector directive mean that consent architecture, data mapping, and audit protocols must be built now. The 13 May 2027 deadline for substantive provisions is not a buffer; it is a countdown. The Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the DNPA challenge means the Act will be operational while its constitutionality is under review—a recipe for interim compliance costs and strategic litigation.

Expect a surge in advisory work around SDF classification, consent manager interoperability, and cross-border data transfer assessments. The DPDP Act’s Section 16 power to notify countries for data transfer restrictions will be the next flashpoint. For litigators, the DNPA and Section 44(3) cases are must-watch dockets. The Court’s approach to balancing privacy, press freedom, and transparency will define the DPDP’s constitutional contours for years.

The DPDP Act is no longer a privacy promise; it is a compliance mandate with constitutional litigation baked in. The Removal of Difficulties Order is the first brick in a very high wall.