In the rapidly digitizing landscape of India, data is the new oil – but it is also a ticking time bomb. For years, organizations across the subcontinent have faced an escalating onslaught of cyberattacks, resulting in a steady stream of data breaches. While the operational costs were significant – from forensic investigations and public relations crises to lost customer trust – the regulatory penalties remained largely a footnote. A breach was an unfortunate incident, an operational expense, but rarely an existential threat.
Consider the prevailing scenario: by 2025, the average total cost of a data breach for Indian organizations had surged to an estimated ₹22 crore (₹220 million). This substantial figure encompasses direct expenses, such as detection and escalation, alongside the often larger impact of lost business and mandatory notifications. Yet, beneath this considerable sum lay a critical gap: a regulatory framework that, while present, lacked the teeth to compel truly stringent security postures. Previous laws, such as specific sections within the IT Act, offered some recourse but often fell short of imposing penalties that genuinely reflected the gravity of data compromises involving millions of citizens. This created an environment where proactive, robust data protection was often seen as a compliance chore rather than an absolute imperative, leading to an insidious complacency.
But a seismic shift has occurred. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, is not just another piece of legislation; it’s a complete overhaul of the data governance landscape. This powerful new law fundamentally transforms the risk calculus, ensuring that the subsequent data breach won’t just be an operational headache or a hit to the balance sheet. It will be a direct challenge to an organization’s very survival, with potential fines reaching an unprecedented ₹250 crore. The era of underestimating data security is definitely over.
Act II: The Historical Case Files – Gaps that Cost Millions
The escalating financial consequences of the DPDPA, with its maximum fine of ₹250 crore, are rooted in India’s recent history of security negligence. Reviewing major breaches from 2023 to 2025 reveals that these incidents were not the result of unpreventable, ultra-sophisticated attacks, but rather failures to close clear, addressable compliance and security gaps. These gaps are precisely what the DPDPA terms a breach of the obligation to take ‘reasonable security safeguards.’
We can trace the pattern of historical breaches to three distinct and costly compliance failures:
-
Failure of Infrastructure and Patch Management (The ‘Reasonable Safeguards’ Gap)
The DPDPA requires Data Fiduciaries (the companies) to ensure robust and continuous data protection. This standard was visibly ignored in the case of a major National Health and Research Facility breach (late 2023/early 2024). The root cause was the prolonged use of outdated network infrastructure and a lack of timely patch application. The incident constituted a breach of security standards, rendering the Data Fiduciary liable for the subsequent data exposure under the new Act’s interpretation of reasonable security measures.
-
Negligence in Third-Party Oversight (The ‘Processor Accountability’ Gap)
The Act holds the Data Fiduciary ultimately responsible for personal data, even when processing is outsourced to a Data Processor (vendor). This duty was tested repeatedly in 2024. A large Financial Services Platform and an E-commerce Giant both suffered massive data leaks that originated, not in their core systems, but in the less-secure databases of their third-party customer support or logistics vendors. A failure to enforce security requirements via contractual agreements, and crucially, a failure to conduct continuous vendor risk assessments, meant these breaches became the Data Fiduciary’s direct, ₹250 crore problem under DPDPA.
-
Poor Data Minimisation and Storage Practices (The ‘Purpose Limitation’ Gap)
Several breaches demonstrated that organizations retained far more data than necessary for their specified purpose, significantly increasing the cost of a compromise. In a 2025 incident involving a Telecommunications Provider, customer data (including KYC details) was found exposed due to a misconfigured cloud storage bucket. The severity of the breach was compounded by the fact that the company was still retaining data of users who had cancelled their service years prior. This was a clear breach of the Storage Limitation principle, which requires data to be erased once the purpose for which it was collected is no longer served. Had the organization purged the old records, the scale and cost of the breach would have been far lower.
These past incidents serve as a definitive history of non-compliance. What was once an acceptable risk under lax regulation is now a clear roadmap for the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) to impose maximum penalties.
Act III: The New Legal Reality – DPDPA’s Monetary Triggers
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, introduces a punitive framework designed to force organizations into compliance, making the cost of a data breach not just high, but potentially catastrophic. Several key monetary triggers define this new reality:
The Highest Penalty: Failure to Implement ‘Reasonable Security Safeguards’
At the core of the DPDPA’s power is Section 8(5), which mandates that every Data Fiduciary “take such reasonable security safeguards to prevent personal data breach.” The violation of this single obligation carries the maximum financial penalty: a staggering ₹250 crore (approximately USD $30 million). This means that the mere existence of a personal data breach, mainly if it can be attributed to a lack of diligent security measures (as seen in the historical examples above), can trigger this monumental fine. It’s a direct price tag on negligence.
The Notification Penalty: The Cost of Silence or Delay
Beyond preventing the breach itself, the DPDPA imposes a separate and significant penalty for transparency failures. Section 8(6) requires Data Fiduciaries to notify both the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) and all affected Data Principals (individuals) in the event of a personal data breach, “in such form and manner as may be prescribed.” Failure to adhere to these notification requirements can result in a penalty of up to ₹200 crore. This ensures that companies cannot hide breaches, forcing public disclosure, which, in turn, amplifies reputational damage and the associated “lost business” costs.
The Significant Data Fiduciary (SDF) Multiplier
For entities designated as ‘Significant Data Fiduciaries’ (based on factors like the volume and sensitivity of data processed), the compliance burden and thus the potential for fines is even higher. SDFs face additional obligations, including appointing a Data Protection Officer, conducting Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), and undergoing regular audits. Non-compliance with these specific duties can incur further penalties, reaching up to ₹150 crore, making the upfront cost of comprehensive data governance a strategic imperative.
Act IV: Beyond the Penalties – Amplified Indirect Costs
While the DPDPA’s direct penalties are formidable, the Act also dramatically amplifies the indirect costs of a data breach, transforming them from mere business challenges into existential threats.
Enhanced Reputational Damage and Customer Attrition
The mandatory public notification requirements ensure that data breaches are no longer swept under the rug. When a major Telecommunications Provider or Financial Services Platform has to publicly declare to a violation, the immediate and visible loss of customer trust translates directly into significant customer attrition, difficulty in acquiring new business, and a long-term struggle to rebuild brand reputation. In the DPDPA era, a breach is not just a security incident; it’s a public relations catastrophe.
Increased Civil Litigation Risk
The DPDPA empowers individual Data Principals with clear rights regarding their personal data. While the Act outlines an enforcement mechanism via the DPBI, the clear legal definitions of non-compliance (e.g., failure to implement safeguards) provide a robust legal basis for affected individuals to pursue civil claims for damages. A company fined ₹250 crore by the DPBI for negligence will find itself in a highly vulnerable position against class-action lawsuits or individual compensation claims, potentially incurring millions more in additional costs.
Escalated Operational Disruption and Remediation Expenses
The mandatory post-breach response protocols, including extensive forensic investigations, reporting to the DPBI within tight deadlines (expected to be 72 hours in draft rules), and implementing immediate remediation, are inherently time-consuming and expensive. This protracted disruption impacts core business operations, diverts resources, and necessitates substantial investment in overhauling security infrastructure to meet DPDPA standards and avoid future penalties.
Act V: Conclusion – The Future of Data Security in India
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, marks a definitive end to India’s era of data privacy complacency. The historical pattern of breaches—driven by lax infrastructure, poor third-party oversight, and excessive data retention—has shown us that the “old” cost of a data breach was a calculation organization could often absorb.
The new cost, however, is a game-changer. The DPDPA has fundamentally rewritten the risk equation: the potential for a ₹250 crore penalty, coupled with amplified reputational damage and increased litigation risk, means that the cost of non-compliance now far outweighs the cost of robust, proactive compliance.
For India Inc., this is a critical call to action. Organizations must pivot from reactive damage control to proactive, security-by-design principles. This means:
- Prioritizing Foundational Security: Investing in robust infrastructure, timely patch management, and eliminating known vulnerabilities.
- Rigorous Third-Party Risk Management: Extending DPDPA compliance requirements and continuous auditing to all vendors and data processors.
- Implementing Data Minimisation: Retaining only the data that is necessary for defined purposes and implementing strict deletion policies.
- Developing Tested Incident Response Plans: Having a clear, practiced plan to handle mandatory notification requirements within the DPDPA’s stringent timelines.
The DPDPA is India’s definitive step towards global data governance, ensuring that the cost of a data breach is now unequivocally linked to the cost of regulatory accountability. In this new era, investing in data security isn’t just good practice; it’s essential for survival.
How Seqrite Helps You Achieve DPDPA-Ready Compliance
As the DPDPA raises the stakes on data protection, organizations need a partner that can translate regulatory requirements into practical, scalable action. Seqrite’s Data Privacy & DPDPA Compliance Service empowers enterprises to operationalize end-to-end compliance through structured data discovery, classification, governance frameworks, consent management guidance, audit readiness, and continuous monitoring. With Seqrite, organizations gain a clear, actionable path to DPDPA compliance, reduced breach risk, and long-term regulatory confidence.
The post The ₹250 Crore Question: How India’s DPDPA Rewrites the Cost of a Data Breach appeared first on Blogs on Information Technology, Network & Cybersecurity | Seqrite.
