Introduction
Regulatory Green Flags: BRD’s Conformity with the DPDP Framework
In practice, the Data Fiduciary initiates a validation request via API to the Consent Management System (CMS). The CMS verifies the relevant Consent Artifact, checking for:
Only if consent is deemed valid does the system permit the data processing to proceed; otherwise, the request is denied, and the user may be notified accordingly. Importantly, all validation requests and outcomes are immutably logged to ensure auditability and regulatory defensibility.
The BRD’s emphasis on comprehensive audit logging of consent validations significantly strengthens the compliance posture under the DPDP Act, marking this feature as a clear “green flag” for implementation.
Regulatory Red Flags: Misalignments with the DPDP Act
Despite the BRD’s strengths, a significant compliance gap emerges in its complete omission of Consent Managers—a role expressly envisaged under Sections 6(7) to 6(9) of the DPDP Act. These intermediaries are intended to empower Data Principals by facilitating consent management in a neutral, platform-agnostic manner. The BRD neither integrates nor acknowledges this statutory function, undermining the Act’s core objectives of decentralization, user autonomy, and trust enhancement. This omission may also raise regulatory and operational concerns around excessive control being concentrated with Data Fiduciaries, counter to the DPDP framework’s structural checks and balances.
The BRD’s consent collection framework overlooks a key statutory requirement under Section 5 of the DPDP Act—informing Data Principals of their right to file a complaint with the Data Protection Board. While the notice stage appropriately covers the categories of personal data being processed, the purpose of processing, and the modalities through which individuals can exercise their data rights, it fails to include any reference to grievance redressal mechanisms. This omission dilutes the transparency and accountability objectives of the DPDP Act and may render the notice non-compliant with statutory mandates.
While the BRD makes a cursory reference to verifying guardian identity—suggesting mechanisms such as DigiLocker—it falls short of establishing a structured, verifiable consent mechanism as required under Section 9(1) of the DPDP Act. Critically, the document does not propose any enforceable procedures to obtain affirmative parental consent prior to processing a child’s personal data. Moreover, it entirely omits safeguards against behavioural profiling or targeted advertising aimed at minors, thereby contravening the protective mandates of Section 9(3). This deficiency presents a significant compliance risk, especially for digital platforms operating in sectors such as education, entertainment, and gaming—domains with high child user engagement and elevated regulatory scrutiny.
The BRD disproportionately centers consent as the exclusive legal basis for processing personal data, overlooking the broader spectrum of lawful grounds explicitly recognized under Section 7 of the DPDP Act for non-consent- based processing. These include vital exceptions such as processing for compliance with legal obligations, emergency medical interventions, employment purposes or the performance of state functions. By failing to incorporate these alternate legal bases, the BRD risks fostering a compliance environment that is overly restrictive and operationally inefficient. Such a narrow approach could lead to gaps in implementation, missed opportunities for lawful processing, and unnecessary legal exposure for entities relying solely on user consent.
Although the BRD mandates that consent withdrawals take effect immediately, it overlooks the nuanced obligation under Section 6(6) of the DPDP Act, which requires Data Fiduciaries to cease—within a reasonable time—all processing activities by themselves and their Data Processors, unless such processing is legally authorized. While the BRD does acknowledge retention and erasure, it frames these as optional, configurable settings rather than mandatory defaults. This approach stands in contrast to Section 8(7) of the DPDP Act, which explicitly requires erasure of personal data once the purpose is fulfilled or consent is withdrawn—unless continued retention is legally justified. The absence of enforced default erasure policies heightens the risk of prolonged or unnecessary data retention, thereby undermining both compliance and the fundamental principle of data minimization.
Business Requirement Document For Consent Management Under the DPDP Act, 2023: https://d38ibwa0xdgwxx.cloudfront.net/whatsnew-docs/8d5409f5-d26c-4697-b10e-5f6fb2d583ef.pdf
* The contents of this blog reflect the personal opinions of the author(s) and should not be construed as the views or any endorsement of any particular legal or policy position by the Firm.
This article was originally published on Saikrishna & Associates