Navigating India's Data Landscape: Essential Compliance Requirements under the DPDP Act

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) marks a pivotal shift in how digital personal data is managed in India, establishing a framework that simultaneously recognizes the individual's right to protect their personal data and the necessity for processing such data for lawful purposes.

For any organization—defined broadly to include individuals, companies, firms, and the State—that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data (a "Data Fiduciary" or DF) [6(i), 9(s)], compliance with the DPDP Act requires strict adherence to several core principles and newly defined rules.

Compliance with the DPDP Act is like designing a secure building: it requires strong foundational principles (Consent and Notice), robust security systems (Data Safeguards and Breach Protocol), specific safety features for vulnerable occupants (Child Data rules), specialized certifications for large structures (SDF obligations), and a clear plan for demolition (Data Erasure). Organizations must begin planning now, as the core operational rules governing notice, security, child data, and retention come into force eighteen months after the publication date of the DPDP Rules in November 2025.  

Here are the most important compliance aspects that Data Fiduciaries must address:

1. The Foundation: Valid Consent and Transparent Notice

The core of lawful data processing rests on either obtaining valid consent from the Data Principal (DP—the individual to whom the data relates) or establishing a "certain legitimate use" [14(1)].

• Requirements for Valid Consent: Consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional, and unambiguous with a clear affirmative action. It must be limited only to the personal data necessary for the specified purpose.
• Mandatory Notice: Every request for consent must be accompanied or preceded by a notice [14(b), 15(1)]. This notice must clearly inform the Data Principal of [15(i), 214(b)]:
• The personal data and the specific purpose(s) for which it will be processed [214(b)(i), 215(ii)].
• The manner in which the Data Principal can exercise their rights (e.g., correction, erasure, withdrawal) [15(ii)].
• The process for making a complaint to the Data Protection Board of India (Board) [15(iii), 216(iii)].
• Right to Withdraw: The Data Principal has the right to withdraw consent at any time, and the ease of doing so must be comparable to the ease with which consent was given [21(4), 215(i)]. If consent is withdrawn, the DF must cease processing the data (and cause its Data Processors to cease processing) within a reasonable time [22(6)].
• Role of Consent Managers: Data Principals may utilize a Consent Manager (CM) to give, manage, review, or withdraw their consent [24(7)]. DFs must be prepared to interact with these registered entities [24(9)]. CMs have specific obligations, including acting in a fiduciary capacity to the DP and maintaining a net worth of at least two crore rupees.

While the DFs may choose to manage consents themselves, the data principals may choose a registered consent manager in which case, the DFs shall have interfaces built with any of the inter-operable Consent Management platform. There seem to be a some bit of ambiguity in this area which would get clarified eventually.

2. Enhanced Data Security and Breach Protocol

Data Fiduciaries must implement robust security measures to safeguard personal data [33(5)].

• Security Measures: DFs must implement appropriate technical and organizational measures [33(4)]. These safeguards must include techniques like encryption, obfuscation, masking, or the use of virtual tokens [222(1)(a)], along with controlled access to computer resources [223(b)] and measures for continued processing in case of compromise, such as data backups [224(d)].
• Breach Notification: In the event of a personal data breach (unauthorized processing, disclosure, loss of access, etc., that compromises confidentiality, integrity, or availability) [10(t)], the DF must provide intimation to the Board and each affected Data Principal [33(6)].
• 72-Hour Deadline: The intimation to the Board must be made without delay, and detailed information regarding the nature, extent, timing, and likely impact of the breach must be provided within seventy-two hours of becoming aware of the breach (or a longer period if allowed by the Board) [227(2)].
• Mandatory Log Retention: DFs must retain personal data, associated traffic data, and other logs related to processing for a minimum period of one year from the date of such processing, unless otherwise required by law.

3. Special Compliance for Vulnerable Groups and Large Entities

The DPDP Act imposes stringent requirements for handling data related to children and mandates extra compliance for large data processors.

A. Processing Children's Data

• Verifiable Consent: DFs must obtain the verifiable consent of the parent before processing any personal data of a child (an individual under 18 years) [5(f), 37(1), 233(1)]. DFs must use due diligence to verify that the individual identifying herself as the parent is an identifiable adult [233(1)].
• Restrictions: DFs are expressly forbidden from undertaking:
• Processing personal data that is likely to cause any detrimental effect on a child’s well-being [38(2)].
• Tracking or behavioral monitoring of children [38(3)].
• Targeted advertising directed at children [38(3)].
• Exemptions: Certain exceptions exist, for example, for healthcare professionals, educational institutions, and child care centers, where processing (including tracking/monitoring) is restricted to the extent necessary for the safety or health services of the child. Processing for creating a user account limited to email communication is also exempted, provided it is restricted to the necessary extent.

B. Obligations of Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs)

The Central Government notifies certain DFs as SDFs based on factors like the volume/sensitivity of data, risk to DPs, and risk to the security/sovereignty of India. SDFs must adhere to:

• Mandatory Appointments: Appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) who must be based in India and responsible to the Board of Directors [40(2)(a), 41(ii), 41(iii)]. They must also appoint an independent data auditor [41(b)].
• Periodic Assessments: Undertake a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and an audit at least once every twelve months [41(c)(i), 247].
• Technical Verification: Observe due diligence to verify that technical measures, including algorithmic software adopted for data handling, are not likely to pose a risk to the rights of Data Principals.
• Data Localization Measures: Undertake measures to ensure that personal data specified by the Central Government, along with associated traffic data, is not transferred outside the territory of India.

4. Data Lifecycle Management: Retention and Erasure

DFs must actively manage the data they hold.

• Erasure Duty: DFs must erase personal data (and cause their Data Processors to erase it) unless retention is necessary for compliance with any law [34(7)]. This duty applies when the DP withdraws consent or as soon as it is reasonable to assume that the specified purpose is no longer being served [34(7)(a)].
• Deemed Erasure Period: For certain high-volume entities (e.g., e-commerce, online gaming, and social media intermediaries having millions of registered users), the specified purpose is deemed no longer served if the DP has not approached the DF or exercised their rights for a set time period (e.g., three years).
• Notification of Erasure: For DFs subject to these time periods, they must inform the Data Principal at least forty-eight hours before the data is erased, giving the DP a chance to log in or initiate contact.

5. Grievance Redressal and Enforcement

DFs must provide readily available means for DPs to resolve grievances [46(1)].

• Redressal System: DFs must prominently publish details of their grievance redressal system on their website or app.
• Response Time: DFs and Consent Managers must respond to grievances within a reasonable period not exceeding ninety days.
• Enforcement: The Data Principal must exhaust the DF's internal grievance redressal opportunity before approaching the Data Protection Board of India [47(3)]. The Board, which functions as an independent, digital office, has the power to inquire into breaches and impose heavy penalties [68, 82(1)].

6. The Cost of Non-Compliance

Breaches of the DPDP Act carry severe monetary penalties outlined in the Schedule. For instance:

 

Breach of Provision	Maximum Monetary Penalty
Failure to observe reasonable security safeguards	Up to ₹250 crore
Failure to give timely notice of a personal data breach	Up to ₹200 crore
Failure to observe additional obligations related to children	Up to ₹200 crore
Breach of duties by Data Principal (e.g., registering a false grievance)	Up to ₹10,000

Cross-Border Compliance: Navigating Multi-Jurisdictional Risk with AI

When business knows no borders, companies expanding globally face a hidden labyrinth: cross-border compliance. The digital age has turned global expansion from an aspiration into a necessity. Yet, for companies operating across multiple countries, this opportunity comes wrapped in a Gordian knot of cross-border compliance. The sheer volume, complexity, and rapid change of multi-jurisdictional regulations—from GDPR and CCPA on data privacy to complex Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and financial reporting rules—pose an existential risk. What seems like a local detail in one jurisdiction may spiral into a costly mistake elsewhere. Yet the stakes are high; noncompliance can bring heavy fines, reputational damage, and operational disruption in markets you’re trying to serve.

To succeed internationally, organizations must treat compliance not as a checkbox but as a strategic foundation. That means weaving together global standards, national laws, and local customs into a unified compliance program. It demands agility: the ability to adjust as laws evolve or new jurisdictions come online. Navigating multi-jurisdictional risk is a significant challenge due to the volume, diversity, and rapid evolution of global regulations. Traditional, manual compliance systems are simply overwhelmed. Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming this landscape by providing a more efficient, accurate, and proactive approach to cross-border compliance.

The Unrelenting Challenge of Multi-Jurisdictional Risk

Operating globally means juggling a constantly evolving set of disparate rules. The core challenges faced by compliance teams include:

• Diverse and Evolving Regulations: Every country has its own unique legal and regulatory framework, which often conflicts with others. A practice legal in one market may be prohibited in the next. This landscape presents both significant challenges and opportunities for businesses.
• Regulatory Change Management: Global regulations are increasing by an estimated 15% annually. This involves monitoring updates, evaluating their impact on policies and operations, and then modifying internal procedures to meet the new requirements. It is crucial for mitigating risk, avoiding penalties, and maintaining operational integrity. Manually tracking, interpreting, and implementing these changes in real-time is nearly impossible.
• Data Sovereignty and Privacy: Operating across multiple jurisdictions presents significant risks concerning data sovereignty and privacy, primarily due to complex, varied, and sometimes conflicting legal frameworks. Laws like the EU's GDPR and similar mandates globally create complex requirements for where data is stored, processed, and transferred. Navigating these differences requires a strategic approach to compliance to avoid severe penalties and reputational damage.
• Operational Inefficiencies: Multi-jurisdiction risk leads to significant operational inefficiencies due to conflicting, overlapping, and complex regulatory environments that require organizations to implement bespoke processes and systems for each region in which they operate. Manual compliance processes are time-consuming, prone to human error, and struggle to keep pace with the volume and complexity of global transactions, leading to potential fines and reputational damage.
• Financial Crime Surveillance: Monitoring cross-border transactions for sophisticated money laundering or sanctions evasion requires processing massive datasets—a task too slow and error-prone for human teams alone. Financial institutions must constantly monitor and assess the risk profiles of various countries, especially those identified by bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as having strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes.

How AI Helps in Navigation and Risk Management

AI helps with cross-border compliance by automating risk management through real-time monitoring, analyzing vast datasets to detect fraud, and keeping up with constantly changing regulations. It navigates complex rules by using natural language processing (NLP) to interpret regulatory texts and automating tasks like document verification for KYC/KYB processes. By providing continuous, automated risk assessments and streamlining compliance workflows, AI reduces human error, improves efficiency, and ensures ongoing adherence to global requirements.

AI, specifically through technologies like Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP), is the critical tool for cutting compliance costs by up to 50% while drastically improving accuracy and speed. AI and machine learning (ML) solutions, often referred to as RegTech, are streamlining compliance by automating tasks, enhancing data analysis, and providing real-time insights.

1. Automated Regulatory Intelligence (RegTech)

The foundational challenge of knowing the law is solved by NLP-powered systems.

• Continuous Monitoring and Mapping: AI algorithms scan thousands of global regulatory sources, government websites, and legal documents daily. NLP can instantly interpret the intent of new legislation, categorize the updates by jurisdiction and relevance, and automatically map new requirements to a company's existing internal policies and controls.
• Real-Time Policy Generation: When a new regulation is detected (e.g., a change to a KYC requirement in Brazil), the AI can not only flag it but can also draft the necessary changes to the company's internal Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for review, cutting implementation time from weeks to hours.

2. Enhanced Cross-Border Transaction Monitoring

AI is essential for fighting financial crime, which often exploits the seams between different legal systems.

• Anomaly Detection: ML models establish a "baseline" of normal cross-border transaction behavior. They can process transactional data 300 times faster than manual systems, instantly flagging subtle deviations that indicate potential fraud, money laundering, or sanctions breaches.
• Reduced False Positives: Traditional rule-based systems generate an excessive number of false alerts, forcing compliance teams to waste time chasing irrelevant leads. AI's continuous learning models can cut false positives by up to 50% while increasing the detection of genuine threats.

3. Streamlined Multi-Jurisdictional Reporting

Compliance reporting is a major manual drain. AI automates the data collection, conversion, and submission process.

• Unified Data Aggregation: AI systems integrate with disparate internal systems (CRM, ERP, Transaction Logs) to collect and standardize data from various regions.
• Automated Formatting and Conversion: The system applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and automatically handles complex tasks like currency conversion using live exchange rates, ensuring reports meet the exact standards of local regulators. This capability drastically improves audit readiness.

4. Enhanced Data Governance and Transfer Management

AI helps organizations manage data across different regions by classifying sensitive information, monitoring cross-border transfers, and ensuring compliance with data localization laws. Techniques like federated learning and homomorphic encryption can facilitate global AI collaboration without transferring raw data across borders, preserving privacy.

5. Predictive Analytics

By analyzing historical data and patterns, AI can forecast potential compliance risks, allowing organizations to implement preemptive measures and build more resilient compliance programs.

Best Practices for AI-Driven Compliance Success

Implementing an AI-driven compliance framework requires a strategic approach:

• Prioritize Data Governance: AI is only as good as the data it’s trained on. Establish a strong, centralized data governance framework to ensure data quality, consistency, and compliance with data localization rules across all jurisdictions.
• Focus on Explainable AI (XAI): Regulators will not accept a "black box." Compliance teams must use Explainable AI (XAI) features that provide transparency into how the AI arrived at a decision (e.g., why a transaction was flagged). This is crucial for audit trails and regulatory dialogue.
• Integrate, Don't Isolate: The AI RegTech solution must integrate seamlessly with your existing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), CRM, and legacy systems. Isolated systems create new data silos and compliance gaps.
• Continuous Training: The AI model and your human teams require continuous updates. As regulations evolve, the AI must be retrained, and your staff needs ongoing education to understand how to leverage the AI's insights for strategic decision-making.

Conclusion: Compliance as a Competitive Edge

Cross-border compliance is not merely a cost center; it is a critical component of global business sustainability. In an era where regulatory complexity accelerates, Artificial Intelligence offers multinational enterprises a clear path to control risk, reduce costs, and operate with confidence.

By leveraging AI's power to monitor, interpret, and act on multi-jurisdictional mandates in real-time, companies can move beyond mere adherence to compliance and transform it into a strategic competitive advantage, building trust and clearing the path for responsible global growth.

Securing APIs at Scale: Threats, Testing, and Governance

As organizations embrace microservices, cloud-native architectures, and digital ecosystems, APIs have become the connective tissue of modern business. From mobile apps to microservices architectures, APIs power virtually every digital interaction we have. As API usage explodes, so do the potential attack vectors, making robust security measures not just important, but essential. 

API security must be approached as a fundamental element of the design and development process, rather than an afterthought or add-on. Many organizations fall short in this regard, assuming that security measures can be patched onto an existing system by deploying security devices like Web Application Firewall (WAF) at the perimeter. In reality, secure APIs begin with the first line of code, integrating security controls throughout the design lifecycle. Even minor security gaps can result in significant economic losses, legal repercussions, and long-term brand damage. Designing APIs with inadequate security practices introduces risks that compound over time, often becoming a time bomb for organizations.

Securing APIs at scale requires more than just technical controls; it demands a lifecycle approach that integrates threat awareness, rigorous testing, and robust governance.

 

The Evolving Threat Landscape

APIs are attractive targets for attackers because they expose business logic, data flows, and authentication mechanisms. According to Salt Security, 94% of organizations experienced an API-related security incident in the past year. The threats facing APIs are constantly evolving, becoming more sophisticated and targeted. Here are some of the most prevalent and concerning threats:

• Broken Authentication & Authorization: This is a perennial favourite for attackers. Weak authentication mechanisms, default credentials, or insufficient authorization checks can lead to unauthorized access, allowing attackers to impersonate users, access sensitive data, or perform actions that they shouldn't. Think of a poorly secured login endpoint that allows brute-forcing, or an API that lets a regular user modify administrative settings.
• Injection Flaws (SQL, NoSQL, Command Injection): While often associated with web applications, injection vulnerabilities are equally dangerous in APIs. Malicious input, often disguised within legitimate API requests, can trick the backend system into executing unintended commands, revealing sensitive data, or even taking control of the server.
• Excessive Data Exposure: APIs are designed to provide data, but sometimes they provide too much data. Overly broad API responses might inadvertently expose sensitive information (e.g., user email addresses, internal system details) that isn't necessary for the client's function. Attackers can then leverage this exposed information for further exploitation.
• Lack of Resource & Rate Limiting: Unrestricted access to API endpoints can lead to various attacks, including denial-of-service (DoS) or brute-force attacks. Without proper rate limiting, an attacker could bombard an API with requests, overwhelming the server or attempting to guess credentials repeatedly.
• Broken Function Level Authorization: Even if a user is authenticated, they might have access to functions or resources they shouldn't. This often occurs when access control checks are not granular enough, allowing a user with basic permissions to perform actions intended only for administrators.
• Security Misconfiguration: This is a broad category encompassing many common errors, such as default security settings that are left unchanged, improper CORS policies, verbose error messages that reveal system details, or unpatched vulnerabilities in underlying software components.
• Mass Assignment: This occurs when an API allows a client to update an object's properties without proper validation, potentially allowing an attacker to modify properties that should only be controlled by the server (e.g., changing a user's role from "standard" to "admin").
• Denial-of-Service (DoS): A DoS attack on an API aims to make the API unavailable to legitimate users by overwhelming it with requests or exploiting vulnerabilities. This can lead to service disruptions, downtime, and potential reputational damage. This is usually accomplished by the attackers using techniques like, Request Flooding, Resource Exhaustion, Exploiting vulnerabilities.
• Shadow APIs: These are the APIs that operates within an organization's environment without the knowledge, documentation, or oversight of the IT and security teams. These unmanaged APIs represent a significant security threat because they expand the attack surface and often lack essential security controls, making them an easy entry point for cybercriminals.

Proactive Testing: Building Resilience

Given the complexity and scale of API ecosystems, a proactive and comprehensive testing strategy is crucial. Relying solely on manual testing is no longer sufficient; automation is key. Following are some of the testing techniques:

 

• Static Application Security Testing (SAST): SAST tools analyze your API's source code, bytecode, or binary code without executing it. They can identify potential vulnerabilities like injection flaws, insecure cryptographic practices, and hardcoded secrets early in the development lifecycle, allowing developers to fix issues before they reach production.
• Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST): DAST tools interact with the running API, simulating real-world attacks. They can identify vulnerabilities like broken authentication, injection flaws, and security misconfigurations by sending various requests and analyzing the API's responses. DAST is excellent for finding vulnerabilities that only manifest during runtime.
• Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST): IAST combines elements of SAST and DAST. It works by instrumenting the running application and monitoring its execution in real-time. This allows IAST to provide highly accurate vulnerability detection, pinpointing the exact line of code where a vulnerability resides and offering context on how it can be exploited.
• API Penetration Testing: Beyond automated tools, ethical hackers perform manual penetration tests to uncover complex vulnerabilities that automated scanners might miss. These "white hat" hackers simulate real-world attack scenarios, trying to exploit logical flaws, bypass security controls, and gain unauthorized access to the API.
• Fuzz Testing: This technique involves feeding a large volume of malformed or unexpected data to an API endpoint to stress-test its resilience and uncover vulnerabilities or crashes that might not be apparent with standard inputs.
• Schema Validation: Enforcing strict schema validation for all API requests and responses helps prevent malformed inputs and ensures data integrity, significantly reducing the risk of injection attacks and other data manipulation exploits.
• Runtime Protection: This refers to the measures and tools implemented to safeguard APIs while they are actively listening and processing requests and responses in production environment. This form of protection focuses on real-time threat detection and prevention, ensuring that APIs function securely during their operational lifespan. API runtime protection is crucial because it addresses threats that may not be caught during the design or development phases.

Robust Governance: The Foundation of Security

Technical controls are vital, but without a strong governance framework, API security efforts can quickly unravel. Without governance, APIs become a “wild west” of inconsistent standards, duplicated efforts, and accidental exposure. Governance provides the policies, processes, and oversight necessary to maintain a secure API ecosystem at scale. Effective Governance includes:

• API Security Policy & Standards: Establish clear, comprehensive security policies and coding standards that all API developers must adhere to. This includes guidelines for authentication, authorization, input validation, error handling, logging, and data encryption.
• Centralized API Gateway: Implement an API Gateway as a single entry point for all API traffic. Gateways can enforce security policies (e.g., authentication, rate limiting, IP whitelisting), perform threat protection, and provide centralized logging and monitoring capabilities.
• Access Control & Least Privilege: Implement robust Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to ensure users and applications only have access to the specific API resources and actions they need to perform their functions. Adhere to the principle of least privilege.
• Regular Security Audits & Reviews: Conduct periodic security audits of your API infrastructure, code, and configurations. Regular reviews help identify deviations from policy, outdated security measures, and new vulnerabilities.
• Threat Modeling: Before developing new APIs, conduct threat modeling exercises to identify potential threats, vulnerabilities, and attack vectors. This proactive approach helps embed security into the design phase rather than trying to patch it on later.
• Incident Response Plan: Develop a comprehensive incident response plan specifically for API security incidents. This plan should outline steps for detection, containment, eradication, recovery, and post-incident analysis.
• Developer Training & Awareness: Educate your development teams on secure coding practices, common API vulnerabilities, and your organization's security policies. Continuous training is essential to keep developers informed about the latest threats and mitigation techniques.
• Version Control & Deprecation Strategy: Securely manage API versions and have a clear strategy for deprecating older, less secure API versions. Attackers often target older endpoints with known vulnerabilities.
• Continuous Monitoring & Alerting: Implement robust monitoring solutions to track API traffic, identify unusual patterns, detect potential attacks, and trigger alerts in real-time. This includes monitoring for authentication failures, unusually high request volumes, and suspicious data access patterns.

Conclusion 

Securing APIs at scale is an ongoing journey, not a destination and it is not just a technical challenge—it’s a strategic imperative. It requires a multifaceted approach that combines advanced technical testing with a strong governance framework and a culture of security awareness. By understanding the evolving threat landscape, implementing proactive testing methodologies, and establishing robust governance, organizations can build resilient API ecosystems that empower innovation while protecting sensitive data and critical business functions. The investment in API security today will undoubtedly pay dividends in preventing costly breaches and maintaining trust in an increasingly API-driven world.