Compliance Briefing — August 11, 2023
India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 now requires boards to institutionalise privacy governance, build operational playbooks for consent and notice management, and mature DSAR response engines ahead of Data Protection Board enforcement and forthcoming rules.
India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) received presidential assent on 11 August 2023, establishing a comprehensive privacy regime that applies to processing of digital personal data within India and extraterritorially when goods or services are offered to individuals in India. The law introduces new accountability expectations for data fiduciaries, empowers the central government to designate significant data fiduciaries with enhanced obligations, and creates a Data Protection Board with the authority to impose penalties up to INR 250 crore per incident. Boards and privacy leaders must now evolve their governance programs, implementation roadmaps, and data subject access request (DSAR) procedures to align with the DPDP Act's requirements and forthcoming rulemaking.
The DPDP Act defines "data fiduciaries" as entities determining the purpose and means of processing, and "data principals" as the individuals whose data is processed. Its provisions span consent management, deemed consent scenarios, children's data protections, cross-border transfer controls, and a suite of data principal rights. Because the Act grants broad delegated powers to the central government—allowing future rules on consent notices, significant data fiduciary criteria, and adjudication procedures—organisations must design governance frameworks that can accommodate rapid regulatory updates. Boards should also anticipate sectoral regulators, such as the Reserve Bank of India and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, aligning their supervisory practices with the new law.
Governance actions for directors and senior privacy leaders
Boards must embed DPDP compliance into enterprise risk governance. Audit committees should request a formal gap analysis referencing each clause of the Act, including consent conditions in Sections 6 and 7, children's data obligations in Section 9, and duties of data processors in Section 8. The analysis should map existing controls to DPDP requirements, flag dependencies on forthcoming rules, and identify budgetary needs for technology investments such as consent management platforms or DSAR automation. Boards should oversee the creation of a DPDP risk register that ranks high-impact processing activities, highlights sensitive data categories, and notes cross-border data flows subject to potential government whitelists.
Senior management ought to appoint a DPDP program sponsor—often the chief privacy officer or chief risk officer—empowered to coordinate legal, security, product, and HR stakeholders. Steering committees should meet monthly during the implementation phase to review policy drafts, track engagement with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and monitor progress toward compliance milestones. Minutes should record decisions about data minimisation strategies, retention limits aligned with Section 8(7), and procurement criteria for processors. For multinational groups, governance documentation must explain how Indian affiliates will interoperate with global privacy policies and whether Binding Corporate Rules or SCCs remain necessary in parallel.
The Act's penalty regime requires clear accountability chains. Organisations should define escalation triggers for notifying the board about potential DPDP violations, such as unauthorised processing, data breaches, or failure to fulfil DSARs. Crisis management frameworks should be updated to reference Section 8(6) obligations to implement reasonable security safeguards and report breaches to the Board and affected data principals. Boards should also mandate annual third-party audits for significant data fiduciaries once designated, covering independent assessments of security controls, algorithmic transparency, and fair processing.
Implementation roadmap: policies, technology, and vendor management
Implementation starts with data mapping. Organisations must catalogue processing activities involving Indian residents, documenting purposes, lawful bases (consent or deemed consent categories), data categories, retention timelines, and cross-border destinations. This inventory supports the issuance of accurate notice statements and informs risk-based prioritisation for remediation. Controllers should also identify processors and sub-processors handling Indian data, ensuring contract clauses address DPDP-specific duties such as assisting with DSAR fulfilment and complying with security safeguards.
Consent management requires significant operational adjustments. Section 6 mandates consent that is free, informed, specific, and unambiguous, with notice presented in clear, plain language. Controllers must deploy interfaces—whether digital forms, mobile app flows, or call centre scripts—that capture affirmative action, provide accessible withdrawal mechanisms, and record consent logs for auditing. Where deemed consent applies, such as performance of legal obligations or responding to medical emergencies, legal teams should document the rationale, applicable section, and safeguards applied. Children's data processing demands verifiable parental consent until age 18, prompting the need for age-gating technologies, guardian verification workflows, and restrictions on tracking or targeted advertising toward minors.
Significant data fiduciaries, once designated, will face additional mandates, including appointment of a data protection officer (DPO) based in India, periodic data protection impact assessments (DPIAs), independent audits, and record-keeping obligations. Even before designation criteria are finalised, organisations with large-scale processing, sensitive sectors, or high-risk AI deployment should prepare by drafting DPIA templates aligned with MeitY's consultation papers, defining DPO reporting lines to the board, and budgeting for accredited auditors.
Security implementation must reflect the Act's requirement for "reasonable security safeguards." Cybersecurity teams should benchmark controls against ISO/IEC 27001 or India's CERT-In guidelines, covering encryption, access management, logging, vulnerability management, and incident response. Breach response playbooks need updates to include notification pathways to the Data Protection Board and to affected data principals "as may be prescribed." Because the Board can direct remediation actions, incident commanders must maintain evidence of containment steps, root cause analyses, and compensation offered to impacted individuals.
Vendor governance becomes more complex under the DPDP Act. Controllers remain liable for processors' actions, requiring robust due diligence, contractual flow-downs, and monitoring. Procurement should update questionnaires to assess processor readiness for Indian data localisation expectations, cross-border transfer restrictions, and DSAR support. Contracts should incorporate audit rights, rapid breach notification clauses, and termination triggers for non-compliance. Vendor scorecards should track remediation of identified gaps, and high-risk suppliers should undergo onsite or remote assessments focused on consent management, security practices, and DSAR handling.
DSAR management and grievance redressal obligations
The DPDP Act grants data principals the rights to access, correction, erasure, grievance redressal, and to nominate another individual to exercise rights post mortem. Controllers must create user-friendly channels for submitting requests—digital dashboards, mobile apps, email, and call centres—while ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities and language diversity across India. DSAR workflows should include identity verification steps calibrated to risk: OTP verification for account holders, government ID checks for high-sensitivity disclosures, and notarised affidavits when nominees act on behalf of deceased individuals.
Upon receiving a request, controllers must respond within prescribed timelines (expected to be defined by rules). To prepare, organisations should set internal service level agreements (SLAs) such as 15 days for acknowledgement and 30 days for fulfilment, adjustable once final regulations emerge. Ticketing systems should log request type, statutory basis, data sources consulted, exemptions applied, and resolution status. Corrections must propagate across downstream processors, with audit trails demonstrating completion. When erasure cannot be honoured—due to legal retention obligations or ongoing investigations—the response should cite the relevant exemption under Section 17 and describe safeguards still in place.
The Act requires accessible grievance redressal mechanisms prior to escalation to the Data Protection Board. Controllers should integrate DSAR portals with complaint workflows, allowing individuals to challenge delays or denials. Grievance officers must be named in privacy notices, reachable via toll-free numbers or email, and empowered to resolve issues promptly. Documentation of complaint handling—including root cause analyses and remedial actions—should feed into compliance dashboards reviewed by the board.
Children's data rights necessitate dedicated protocols. Parents or guardians must be able to review data collected on minors, withdraw consent, and demand cessation of tracking or behavioural advertising. Schools and edtech providers should establish agreements clarifying responsibilities for rights fulfilment and informing parents about data sharing with third parties. For platforms offering age-appropriate experiences, DSAR systems must respect both the guardian's authority and the child's evolving capacity, providing educational materials about privacy choices.
Cross-border data transfers and localisation strategy
The DPDP Act adopts a whitelist approach: cross-border transfers are permitted except to jurisdictions that the central government prohibits. Organisations should monitor MeitY notifications for restricted countries and maintain transfer registers that map each destination, processor, and data category. If a jurisdiction becomes restricted, controllers must be able to suspend transfers rapidly, reroute processing to Indian or approved locations, and inform affected business units. Contracts should include contingency plans for migrating data or terminating services if geopolitical changes arise.
Multinational companies must harmonise DPDP obligations with global privacy frameworks. Where Binding Corporate Rules or SCCs already govern intra-group transfers, legal teams should align contractual language with DPDP requirements, ensuring Indian data subjects receive comparable protections abroad. Organisations may also explore localisation for certain datasets—such as financial records or health information—to minimise regulatory risk, documenting the decision-making rationale and residual exposure in risk registers.
Monitoring, training, and ongoing assurance
Compliance does not end with initial implementation. Organisations must deliver role-based training covering consent collection, DSAR triage, breach reporting, and children's data safeguards. Performance metrics should measure training completion, DSAR turnaround, breach frequency, and vendor remediation status. Internal audit or compliance functions should conduct periodic reviews of policy adherence, technology controls, and documentation quality, escalating significant findings to the board and preparing evidence packs for potential Data Protection Board inspections.
Stakeholder communication strengthens accountability. Companies should update privacy notices, trust centre webpages, and customer agreements to explain DPDP compliance measures. Public statements should avoid overpromising; accuracy is vital given potential FTC-style deceptive practice enforcement by Indian regulators. Organisations should also maintain engagement with industry associations and MeitY consultations to stay ahead of rule changes, contributing empirical feedback on DSAR volumes, consent withdrawal patterns, and emerging risks.
By orchestrating strong governance oversight, meticulous implementation, and resilient DSAR operations, organisations can transform DPDP compliance into a competitive differentiator. Transparent accountability, auditable processes, and responsive grievance handling will be critical as the Data Protection Board begins active supervision and as India refines its privacy ecosystem through subordinate rules and sectoral guidance.
Continue in the Compliance pillar
Return to the hub for curated research and deep-dive guides.
Latest guides
-
Third-Party Risk Oversight Playbook — Zeph Tech
Operationalize OCC, Federal Reserve, EBA, and MAS outsourcing expectations with lifecycle controls, continuous monitoring, and board reporting.
-
Compliance Operations Control Room — Zeph Tech
Implement cross-border compliance operations that satisfy Sarbanes-Oxley, DOJ guidance, EU DORA, and MAS TRM requirements with verifiable evidence flows.
-
SOX Modernization Control Playbook — Zeph Tech
Modernize Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance by aligning PCAOB AS 2201, SEC management guidance, and COSO 2013 controls with data-driven testing, automation, and board reporting.