India’s DPDP Act and the European Union’s GDPR share a common objective: protecting individuals’ personal data rights. Both establish consent-based processing, purpose limitation, data minimisation, and individual rights as core principles. But the similarities end at the surface. In application, enforcement, and structure, the two laws diverge significantly.
For multinational companies operating in both jurisdictions, understanding these differences is not academic — it is operationally critical. GDPR compliance does not automatically satisfy DPDP Act requirements, and vice versa.
Scope and Definitions
The DPDP Act applies exclusively to digital personal data — data collected in digital form or collected offline and subsequently digitised. The GDPR covers all personal data, regardless of format. The DPDP Act does not create separate categories for sensitive or special-category personal data, unlike the GDPR’s distinct treatment of health data, biometric data, racial or ethnic origin, and other sensitive categories.
The DPDP Act’s scope is narrower but more focused. It does not attempt to regulate all forms of data processing; instead, it targets the digital data ecosystem that powers modern commerce and governance.
Legal Bases for Processing
The GDPR provides six legal bases for processing: consent, contractual necessity, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, and legitimate interests. The DPDP Act primarily relies on two: consent and “legitimate uses” defined in Section 7 (employment purposes, medical emergencies, state functions, etc.).
The absence of a broad “legitimate interests” ground in the DPDP Act is significant. Many processing activities that European businesses justify under legitimate interests will require explicit consent under the Indian framework.
Cross-Border Data Transfers
The GDPR uses an adequacy-based system: transfers to countries with “adequate” protection are permitted, while transfers to others require Standard Contractual Clauses, Binding Corporate Rules, or other safeguards. The DPDP Act takes the opposite approach — a negative list model. Transfers are allowed to all jurisdictions unless the Central Government specifically restricts them. As of early 2026, no restricted jurisdictions have been notified.
This approach provides operational flexibility but introduces uncertainty. The government can add restrictions at any time without the extended assessment processes typical of adequacy decisions.
What Multinationals Should Do
Global businesses should conduct a gap analysis between their GDPR compliance programmes and DPDP Act requirements. Key areas requiring attention include redesigning consent mechanisms to meet the DPDP Act’s higher consent bar; implementing multilingual notices in Indian languages; establishing rights management workflows aligned with Indian timelines; preparing for potential data localisation requirements if classified as an SDF; and integrating with the Consent Manager ecosystem once it becomes operational. A unified privacy programme with jurisdiction-specific modules is the most efficient approach. Build a common foundation of data governance practices and layer on jurisdiction-specific requirements as needed.