Rule 12 — DPDP Rules, 2025
(1) The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 9 shall not apply to a Data Fiduciary if— (a) it processes only such personal data of a child as is necessary for a purpose that is demonstrably in the interest of the child, including for the child's welfare, education or health; and (b) it does not undertake profiling, tracking or behavioural monitoring of the child. (2) The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 9 shall not apply to a Data Fiduciary if it processes personal data of a child only for purposes related to the child's education or health.
Source: Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. Official text available at truconsent.io/resources/dpdp-rules.pdf.
Rule 12 provides two narrow exemptions from Section 9's obligations — but note carefully what is and isn't relieved. Section 9(1)'s verifiable parental consent requirement can be exempted for Data Fiduciaries demonstrably serving the child's own interests (welfare, education, health) — without profiling or tracking. Section 9(3)'s tracking prohibition can be exempted for education or health purposes specifically. Neither exemption covers commercial purposes. And Section 9(2) — no processing detrimental to child wellbeing — is never relieved under any exemption.
A school uses a biometric attendance system for students. This processes children's data demonstrably in the interest of the child's education, without profiling or behavioural monitoring. Rule 12(1) may exempt this from the verifiable parental consent requirement — the school is a Data Fiduciary processing only what is necessary for an educational purpose.
A gaming company's app is popular with under-18 users. Even if gameplay is educational in nature, the gaming platform is primarily a commercial entity — it does not demonstrably serve the child's welfare, education or health as its primary purpose. Rule 12's exemptions do not apply, and verifiable parental consent under Rule 10 is required.
No exemption under Rule 12 removes the prohibition on processing that is 'likely to cause detrimental effect on the well-being of a child.' An edtech platform that uses a child's performance data to show them distressing comparison rankings fails Section 9(2) — regardless of whether it otherwise qualifies for a Rule 12 exemption.