The Editors Guild of India has raised concerns about the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill, saying that it could have an adverse impact on press freedom. The Guild has specifically pointed to the following provisions of the Bill:

The Editors Guild of India has raised concerns about the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill, saying that it could have an adverse impact on press freedom. The Guild has specifically pointed to the following provisions of the Bill:

* **Section 36**, which allows the government to ask any public or private entity to furnish personal information of citizens, including journalists and their sources.

* **Clause 17(2)(a)**, which allows the government to exempt any "instrumentality of the State" from the provisions of the Bill.

The Guild argues that these provisions could be used to surveil journalists and their sources, which would have a chilling effect on press freedom. The Guild also argues that the exemptions for "instrumentalities of the State" are too broad, and could allow the government to exempt itself from the law altogether.

In addition to these specific concerns, the Guild has also raised broader concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the DPDP Bill. The Guild argues that the Bill does not provide enough safeguards to ensure that the government will not misuse its powers under the law.

The Editors Guild is not the only organization that has raised concerns about the DPDP Bill. The Internet Freedom Foundation has also expressed concerns about the Bill, arguing that it "would give the government sweeping powers to surveil citizens and stifle dissent."

The DPDP Bill is currently being debated in Parliament. The Editors Guild is urging Parliament to amend the Bill to address its concerns. The Guild is also calling on the government to create a separate law to protect the privacy of journalists and their sources.

Here are some additional details about the Editors Guild's concerns:

* The Guild argues that Section 36 of the DPDP Bill could be used to target journalists who are investigating corruption or other sensitive stories.

* The Guild also argues that Clause 17(2)(a) could be used to exempt the government from the provisions of the Bill, even if the government is engaged in surveillance of journalists or their sources.

* The Guild is concerned that the DPDP Bill does not provide enough safeguards to prevent the government from abusing its powers under the law.

* The Guild is calling on Parliament to amend the DPDP Bill to address its concerns, and to create a separate law to protect the privacy of journalists and their sources.

The Editors Guild's concerns are valid and important. The DPDP Bill is a complex piece of legislation, and it is important to ensure that it does not have an adverse impact on press freedom. The government should take the Guild's concerns seriously, and should work to amend the Bill to address them.