The DPDPA is India’s data law and the GDPR is the EU’s. Both protect personal data and grant individual rights, but the DPDPA is shorter, has no separate “sensitive data” category, treats anyone under 18 as a child, uses a negative-list for cross-border transfers, and caps penalties at ₹250 crore.
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) is frequently compared to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — and for good reason. Many Indian businesses already comply with the GDPR because they serve European customers, and the DPDPA borrows several of its core ideas. But the two laws are far from identical, and assuming GDPR compliance equals DPDPA compliance is a costly mistake.
At a high level, the DPDPA is deliberately leaner. The GDPR runs to 99 articles with detailed prescriptions; the DPDPA is a compact, principles-based statute that leaves much of the operational detail to the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. This section unpacks where the two overlap and where the differences will change how an Indian business operates.
How do the DPDPA and GDPR compare at a glance?
The table below summarises the most consequential differences across the dimensions that matter most when designing a compliance programme.
| Aspect | DPDPA (India) | GDPR (EU) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminology | Data Fiduciary (controller) and Data Principal (the individual) | Data Controller and Data Subject |
| Scope of data | Digital personal data only; no separate “sensitive personal data” category | All personal data, with special categories (health, biometrics, etc.) given extra protection |
| Legal bases | Consent plus a defined set of “legitimate uses” (Section 7) | Six lawful bases, including legitimate interests and contractual necessity |
| Cross-border transfers | Transfers allowed except to countries on a government “negative list” (blacklist) | Transfers need an adequacy decision, Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) or other safeguards (allow-list) |
| Age of a child | Under 18 | Under 16 by default; member states may lower it to 13 |
| DPO requirement | Mandatory only for Significant Data Fiduciaries (Section 10) | Required for public authorities and large-scale or sensitive processing — a broader set |
| Maximum penalty | Up to ₹250 crore per instance | Up to €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher |
| Regulator | Data Protection Board of India (a single national body) | National Data Protection Authorities in each member state, coordinated by the EDPB |
| Breach notification | Notify the Data Protection Board and affected Data Principals (form/timeline per DPDP Rules 2025) | Notify the supervisory authority within 72 hours; notify individuals if high risk |
How does the terminology differ?
The DPDPA uses distinctly Indian vocabulary. The organisation that decides why and how data is processed is a “Data Fiduciary” (the GDPR’s “controller”), and the individual is a “Data Principal” (the GDPR’s “data subject”). The word “fiduciary” is deliberate — it frames the organisation as holding data in trust on the individual’s behalf, signalling a duty of care rather than mere control. A processor is a “Data Processor” under both laws.
How does the scope of protected data differ?
This is one of the most important practical differences. The GDPR protects all personal data and carves out “special categories” — such as health, biometric, genetic, racial or religious data — for heightened protection. The DPDPA, by contrast, applies only to digital personal data (collected digitally, or on paper and later digitised) and does not create a separate “sensitive personal data” category. Every category of personal data is treated under one regime, although the special rules for children’s data add nuance.
No “sensitive data” tier — but don’t relax
The absence of a sensitive-data category does not mean health or financial data carries less risk under the DPDPA. The Board still weighs the type and nature of the data affected when assessing penalties, so high-impact data deserves stronger safeguards regardless.
How do the legal bases for processing differ?
The GDPR offers six lawful bases for processing: consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task and legitimate interests. The DPDPA is narrower: it relies primarily on consent, supplemented by a defined list of “legitimate uses” in Section 7 — such as where the individual voluntarily provided data for a purpose, certain employment situations, medical emergencies and disaster response. Notably, the DPDPA has no broad “legitimate interests” basis equivalent to the GDPR’s, so Indian businesses cannot lean on that catch-all and will rely on consent far more often.
How do cross-border transfer rules differ?
The two laws take opposite default stances. The GDPR works on an allow-list logic: transfers outside the EEA are restricted unless there is an adequacy decision, Standard Contractual Clauses, binding corporate rules or another approved safeguard. The DPDPA works on a negative-list (blacklist) logic: transfers of personal data outside India are permitted by default, except to countries the Central Government specifically restricts by notification. This makes the DPDPA more permissive on transfers in principle, though sector-specific data-localisation rules may still apply.
How does the treatment of children differ?
Under the DPDPA (Section 9), a child is anyone under 18, and processing a child’s data requires verifiable parental or guardian consent, with tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising to children prohibited. The GDPR sets a lower default threshold of 16 for a child to consent to information-society services, and allows member states to lower it to as low as 13. India’s under-18 line is therefore significantly stricter and captures teenage users that many global services treat as adults.
Under-18 is a real operational gap
A service that relies on GDPR-style age gates at 13 or 16 is not DPDPA-compliant. India’s under-18 standard means you may need verifiable parental consent for a far larger group of users than your EU programme assumes.
How do DPO and accountability requirements differ?
The GDPR requires a Data Protection Officer for public authorities and for organisations whose core activities involve large-scale or sensitive processing — a relatively broad set. The DPDPA reserves the mandatory DPO requirement for Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) notified under Section 10, who must also appoint an independent data auditor and conduct periodic Data Protection Impact Assessments and audits. For most ordinary Data Fiduciaries, the DPDPA instead requires a published point of contact rather than a formally designated DPO.
How do penalties and regulators differ?
The headline numbers are structured differently. The DPDPA caps penalties at fixed rupee ceilings — up to ₹250 crore per instance for failing to take reasonable security safeguards — while the GDPR ties its top tier to a percentage of global turnover (up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher), which can be far larger for a multinational. On enforcement, the DPDPA centralises authority in a single Data Protection Board of India with appeals to TDSAT, whereas the GDPR relies on a national Data Protection Authority in each member state, coordinated through the European Data Protection Board.
GDPR compliance is a strong head start, not a substitute. The DPDPA’s under-18 rule, consent-heavy bases and negative-list transfers all demand India-specific changes.
What overlaps and what is unique to India?
The shared DNA is substantial: both laws are built on notice, consent, individual rights, purpose limitation, data minimisation, security safeguards, breach notification and accountability — and both apply extra-territorially to organisations serving their residents. If you already run a mature GDPR programme, your data inventory, rights workflows and security controls transfer well.
- Unique to India: no separate sensitive-data category, a negative-list approach to cross-border transfers, an under-18 definition of a child, a single national Data Protection Board, and rupee-denominated penalty caps.
- Heavier reliance on consent: with no broad “legitimate interests” basis, many activities a GDPR programme handles via legitimate interests must be re-based on consent or a Section 7 legitimate use.
- Different breach mechanics: notification goes to the Data Protection Board and affected individuals on the timeline set by the DPDP Rules 2025, rather than the GDPR’s fixed 72-hour rule.
- Shared foundations: notice, consent, individual rights, minimisation, security, accountability and extra-territorial reach.
Bridge the gap, don’t rebuild
Run a free DPDPA readiness assessment to see exactly where your existing GDPR programme already satisfies the DPDPA and where India-specific gaps — children’s consent, lawful bases, breach process — still need work.