DPDP Rules status: compliance window active. Read the update

Skip to content
Transparency

Corrections

If something on this site is wrong, we'd rather you find out from us than from a regulator. This page lists every factual correction made after initial publication — what was wrong, what it now says, and when it changed. If you spot an error, email contact@indiaairulebook.com.

Educational only · not legal adviceLast updated: 17 August 2026Written and edited by Sandesh Kokate
  1. 17 August 2026Payments and Wallet Data
    What was wrong
    This site briefly described the Reserve Bank of India's consolidation of 28 November 2025 as withdrawing all circulars predating that date. That rule was wrong, and it was applied to citations across the finance pages before it was caught.
    What it says now
    The consolidation withdrew circulars administered by the RBI's Department of Regulation. Instruments issued by other departments, including the Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, were not covered. The consolidation is now described as department-scoped, and citations are assessed by issuing department rather than by date.

    Corrected by Sandesh Kokate

  2. 17 August 2026Methodology
    What was wrong
    Several regulator citations carried an 'in-force, checked' status that had not in fact been checked against the document. The status was inferred from search-result metadata or secondary commentary — the RBI payment-data-storage circular of 2018 and its 2019 FAQs, the RBI (Digital Lending) Directions, 2025, the withdrawn pre-consolidation outsourcing circulars, and SEBI's Regulation 16C amendment.
    What it says now
    All five are marked unverified until the primary document is opened, each with a note recording what the claim actually rests on. The DPDP Act and Rules keep their in-force status, but the check date now records that it was verified through a PIB backgrounder rather than the Gazette PDF. A status derived from commentary is the same defect as a review stamp with no review.

    Corrected by Sandesh Kokate

  3. 17 August 2026Children's data
    What was wrong
    Children's-data exemptions were described as unnotified. This site previously stated that the Fourth Schedule to the DPDP Rules, 2025 — which sets out the exempt classes of Data Fiduciary and exempt purposes for children's data — had not been notified, and advised readers to assume no exemption applied.
    What it says now
    That was wrong. The Fourth Schedule was notified with the Rules on 13 November 2025 and has been in force since. Rule 12, read with Parts A and B of the Fourth Schedule, disapplies Sections 9(1) and 9(3) for specified classes and purposes. The error affected the children's-data explainer and the pending tracker, and has been corrected on both. What remains unexercised is the separate power under Section 9(5) to lower the age below 18 for a named Data Fiduciary.

    Corrected by Sandesh Kokate

  4. 17 August 2026Methodology
    What was wrong
    Review dates were displayed for reviews that had not taken place. Pages across this site displayed 'Last reviewed' dates of 1 May 2026 or 1 June 2026. Those dates did not record an actual review — the pages were created after them.
    What it says now
    The stamps have been removed. Pages now show only a 'Last updated' date derived from when their content genuinely last changed, and a 'Last reviewed' date will appear only where a review has in fact been carried out. A previously listed correction, dated 9 June 2026, was also removed: it recorded a change that predates this site's earliest source-controlled version and could not be substantiated.

    Corrected by Sandesh Kokate