A Practical DPDP Implementation Advisory Guide for Government Departments Series – Article 3 of 8
One of the most persistent misunderstandings surrounding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is the belief that every use of personal data requires consent. For government departments, this assumption is not only incorrect—it risks undermining lawful and efficient administration.
The DPDP framework recognises a practical reality: the State performs functions that cannot depend on individual consent. At the same time, it draws a deliberate boundary around where consent is required and where statutory authority is sufficient. Understanding this distinction is central to defensible DPDP compliance in government.
“Do we need citizen consent for this processing, or can we rely on statutory authority?”
Consent Is Not the Default for Government Functions
Unlike private sector data protection regimes, where consent often serves as the primary legal basis, government processing is largely anchored in law. Public authorities collect and process personal data to perform functions such as taxation, licensing, welfare delivery, regulation, and enforcement—activities that are authorised by statute and cannot be made conditional on individual approval.
Reflecting this reality, the DPDP Act permits processing of personal data without consent where such processing is necessary for the performance of functions authorised by law, or for compliance with legal obligations. This framework—commonly referred to as legitimate use—is embedded in Section 7 of the Act.
Legitimate use is not an exception to the law. It is an expression of lawful authority exercised within defined boundaries.
When Consent Becomes Necessary
The presence of legitimate use does not render consent irrelevant. On the contrary, consent becomes essential whenever a government department moves beyond its core statutory mandate.
Optional services, non-essential personalisation, behavioural analytics, citizen engagement initiatives, or pilot projects that are not strictly required by law may require consent under the DPDP framework. In such cases, consent must meet statutory standards: it must be free, informed, specific, and capable of being withdrawn, as envisaged under the Act.
A practical test helps guide decision-making: Is this processing indispensable to the statutory function, or is it an additional layer intended to enhance service delivery? Where the latter applies, consent should be carefully evaluated.
Decision Framework for Departments
Before launching or modifying any service, departments should ask:
- Is this processing strictly required by statute?
- Can the service function if the citizen refuses?
- Is the data being reused or analysed beyond delivery?
- Is the communication advisory or promotional?
If the answer to any of these indicates choice or non-essential use, consent applies.
Legitimate Use Does Not Eliminate Transparency
A frequent compliance error is assuming that processing without consent reduces disclosure obligations. The DPDP Act does not support this view. Even where personal data is processed under legitimate use, transparency obligations remain intact.
Departments must provide clear information about the nature of data collected, the purpose of processing, the legal basis, and grievance redressal mechanisms. The requirement to issue notices in clear and accessible language applies irrespective of whether consent is relied upon.
In effect, transparency serves as the accountability mechanism that balances the State’s authority to process data without consent.
How This Plays Out in Practice
Consider taxation systems. Personal data is processed to assess liability, detect evasion, and enforce compliance—functions clearly grounded in law. Consent is neither required nor appropriate. What is required is strict adherence to purpose limitation and reasonable security safeguards.
In welfare administration, personal data is essential to determine eligibility, prevent duplication, and ensure targeted delivery. Again, legitimate use applies. However, inter-departmental data sharing must remain proportionate and documented to withstand scrutiny.
In transport and licensing systems, identity and biometric data may be processed to meet regulatory and safety objectives. If the same data is later reused for analytics or service optimisation beyond statutory necessity, departments must reassess whether consent is required.
These distinctions shape system design, procurement decisions, and risk assessments.
The Compliance Risk Lies in Misclassification
Over-reliance on consent can disrupt essential public services. Over-extension of legitimate use can invite regulatory concern. The real compliance risk arises when departments fail to consciously classify processing activities and document their rationale.
The DPDP framework expects departments to demonstrate why consent was not taken—not merely assert that it was unnecessary. Internal assessments, records of processing, and clear notices play a critical role in this defence.
Governance Over Formalism
The DPDP Act does not promote ritualistic consent mechanisms or blanket legal disclaimers. It promotes reasoned governance. Consent and legitimate use are tools to enable lawful administration, not procedural hurdles to be mechanically cleared.
Departments that apply these concepts thoughtfully will find DPDP compliance compatible with administrative efficiency. Those that treat them as formalities may struggle when their practices are examined.
What Comes Next
While legitimate use enables government to function effectively, the DPDP Act also recognises limited exemptions for specific situations. These exemptions are often misunderstood—and frequently overstated.
The next article examines this boundary carefully:
Coming up: Exemptions Explained – Narrow and Non-Absolute
Read Also :
Why DPDP Compliance Matters for Government
Core DPDP Act Principles Every Government Department Must Understand.