Introduction
The Draft Digital Data Protection Rules, 2025 (DPDP Rules), enacted under the framework of the Digital Data Protection Act, 2023 (Principal Act), signify a landmark shift in India’s approach to digital privacy and data governance. These rules offer a structured mechanism for addressing contemporary challenges, particularly in the domains of children’s data, breach management, consent protocols, and regulatory oversight. The rules are up for consultation and comments until February 18, 2025.
By embedding global best practices while acknowledging local complexities, the DPDP Rules mark a significant stride in safeguarding individual data rights within a rapidly evolving digital ecosystem. This analysis delves into the intricate provisions of the rules, elucidating their implications and potential challenges juxtaposing them with the Principal Act.
In this part, we will focus on the provisions and rules related to the protection of Children’s Data, intimation of personal data breach, timelines of such intimation, government’s oversight and implementation challenges corresponding them.
Parental Consent and the Safeguarding of Children’s Data
Central to the Principal Act is its robust emphasis on protecting children’s data. Section 9 of the Principal Act mandates that data fiduciaries obtain verifiable parental consent before processing a minor’s data. Through the rules, this requirement necessitates the validation of parental identity through trusted identifiers, such as government-issued IDs or virtual tokens.
While this provision underscores a laudable commitment to safeguarding minors, its practical execution presents notable challenges. The absence of robust, fraud-resistant systems for verifying identity creates vulnerabilities that could compromise the integrity of the consent process. Moreover, the operational burdens imposed on platforms—especially those engaging large user bases—might lead to uneven compliance.
Platforms catering to diverse demographics may face added challenges in adapting these mechanisms to local contexts, including rural areas where digital literacy is limited. These requirements impose verification and data processing challenges on platforms, which may potentially jeopardizing sensitive personal data.
Comparative Insights: Lessons from Australia’s Regulatory Model
India’s balanced approach to children’s data protection can draw parallels with Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Bill 2024, (passed recently) which takes a prohibitive stance by restricting individuals under 16 from accessing social media platforms. While Australia’s framework imposes stringent age-verification protocols, often involving biometric data collection, it has elicited concerns regarding privacy risks associated with excessive data collection.
India, by focusing on controlled access mediated through parental consent, seeks to balance regulatory oversight with the autonomy of parents and guardians. However, the success of this model depends on resolving operational challenges and ensuring that regulatory mechanisms align with the dynamic needs of digital ecosystems while safeguarding children’s rights. Unlike Australia’s outright prohibitions, India’s Rules emphasize proportionality, reflecting the Act’s intent to foster inclusivity while mitigating risks. Yet, the Rules must address concerns over excessive data retention and localization mandates, which may inadvertently undermine data protection objectives.
Breach Notification Timelines: Striking the Balance Between Urgency and Precision
The DPDP Rules align with global standards by requiring prompt notification of data breaches. Rule 7 specifies that data fiduciaries must inform both affected users (without undue delay) and the Data Protection Board within 72 hours of detecting a breach. This directive underscores the importance of transparency and accountability.
While its commendable that the data principal shall be made aware of a personal data breach immediately, the ambiguity surrounding the term “undue delay” complicates enforcement, potentially resulting in inconsistent compliance. Premature disclosures could hinder investigations, while delayed notifications may exacerbate risks to affected individuals.
Rule 7 also mandates that notices of data breaches to data principals must be concise, specific, and unambiguous, however, the lack of standardized templates for breach reporting may lead to variations in the quality and completeness of disclosures. The rules talks only about notifying through user account or any other registered communication link which could be deemed as an in-app notification but is yet unclear.
Achieving a balanced approach that prioritizes comprehensive assessment alongside timely reporting will be essential to instill public confidence in the breach management process.
The Role of Consent Managers: Streamlining Data Governance
An innovative feature of the DPDP Rules is the introduction of Consent Managers as key intermediaries in the data governance ecosystem. Section 11 of the Principal Act outlines their responsibilities, including facilitating the acquisition, management, and withdrawal of user consent. These entities must ensure interoperability and transparency by maintaining clear records and providing users with accessible tools for managing their data rights.
Consent Managers are tasked with facilitating the acquisition, management, and withdrawal of consent while maintaining transparent and accessible records. The rules designate these managers to operate with a high level of interoperability, ensuring that users can exercise their rights across multiple platforms efficiently. Moreover, the rules impose strict standards for transparency and accountability, mandating that Consent Managers provide clear and precise communication to data principals (Schedule A, Part B).
The DPDP framework grants expansive powers to the Central Government, aimed at enhancing national data security and sovereignty. Provisions such as Section 17, which enables the restriction of cross-border data transfers, and Section 36, which mandates disclosures from data fiduciaries, underscore this intent. Moreover, Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) are subject to heightened scrutiny, including annual data protection impact assessments and algorithmic audits. While these measures reflect a proactive regulatory posture, they also raise concerns about potential overreach.
Overly restrictive data localization mandates could impede innovation and disrupt global business operations, particularly for sectors reliant on cross-border data flows. Additionally, the lack of clear thresholds for identifying SDFs creates ambiguity, potentially leading to uneven enforcement. These concerns necessitate careful calibration to balance national security imperatives with economic considerations.
Addressing Implementation Challenges: Pathways to Refinement
Effective implementation of the DPDP Rules requires a holistic and strategic approach. Resolving ambiguities in provisions such as breach timelines and consent verification is paramount. Regulatory guidelines should provide clear and actionable definitions to ensure consistent enforcement. Leveraging advanced technologies, such as AI-driven fraud detection systems, can enhance the robustness of consent mechanisms while safeguarding user privacy.
Collaboration among stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society, will be crucial in refining the regulatory framework. Small and medium enterprises, which may face resource constraints, require targeted capacity-building initiatives, including training programs and financial incentives, to enable compliance. Moreover, bolstering the independence and operational transparency of the Data Protection Board (established under Section 19) is essential to fostering trust and ensuring impartial enforcement.
Public awareness campaigns are integral to the success of the DPDP framework. Furthermore, aligning the DPDP Rules with global frameworks such as GDPR will enhance international interoperability, facilitating seamless cross-border data flows and positioning India as a leader in digital governance.
Conclusion
The Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 herald a transformative era in India’s data governance landscape. By addressing critical dimensions such as children’s data protection, breach management, the role of Consent Managers, and government oversight, the framework aspires to balance individual privacy rights with regulatory efficacy. However, its success will depend on meticulous implementation, sustained technological innovation, and meaningful stakeholder collaboration. By refining its approach and aligning with global best practices, India has the potential to establish a model data governance framework that safeguards privacy while fostering innovation and economic progress in an increasingly digital world.
In the next part of the piece, we shall discuss the Data retention policies and classes of data fiduciaries defined by the government, elucidating more on the exemptions and powers of the Government in the Rules.
(This post has been authored by Yash Bhatnagar, an Editor at The Contemporary Law Forum)
CITE AS: Yash Bhatnagar, ‘India’s Draft Data Protection Rules 2025: An analytical primer of what lies ahead in the Indian Privacy Paradigm: Part 1’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 1 December 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/01/07/indias-draft-data-protection-rules-2025-an-analytical-primer-of-what-lies-ahead-in-the-indian-privacy-paradigm-part-1/>date of access.