Data Privacy · Module 07
A thorough, repeatable review of how data is actually handled — so adherence to privacy law is verified from evidence rather than asserted from policy.
Primary DPDP sectionsSec. 10(2)(b)
How it works
Evidence is produced by operating the controls, so proving compliance is a query rather than a quarter of reconstruction
Scoped access, evidence served masked by default, sampling without raw export.
Each requirement mapped to the control that satisfies it and the evidence that proves it, with gaps against named owners.
Append-only and timestamped, written as a by-product of the controls running.
Consent, discovery, masking, assessments and breach response, all emitting into one store.
Sec. 28: an inability to produce records does not attract its own penalty. It removes the defence against every other one.
Capability
Integrates into existing data management systems and centralises protection activity including redaction and consent.
Documentation and processing logs on demand, and evidence handed to external auditors without exposing the underlying sensitive data.
Visual reconciliation of real data-handling practice against each compliance requirement, regulation by regulation.
Proving compliance becomes a query rather than a quarter — the evidence is generated by running the platform, not assembled when the auditor calls.
DPDP alignment
What the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 requires, and the control that satisfies it.
| Section | What the Act requires | How the product satisfies it |
|---|---|---|
| Sec. 10(2)(b) | A Significant Data Fiduciary must appoint an independent data auditor to carry out data audit and evaluate compliance with the Act. | A scoped auditor workspace serves documentation and processing logs on demand, masked by default — the auditor gets evidence without being granted the estate. |
| Sec. 8(9) | Publish the business contact information of the DPO or a person able to answer questions about processing. | Contact publication, the queries received against it and the responses given are all held in one evidenced trail. |
| Sec. 8(10) | Establish an effective grievance redressal mechanism. | Grievance volumes, response times and outcomes are reportable as evidence that the mechanism is effective in practice, not merely established on paper. |
| Sec. 28 | The Data Protection Board may conduct an inquiry and require production of records and information. | Board-facing evidence packages are assembled from the same trail that runs the operational controls, so production is a query rather than a reconstruction. |
| Sec. 8(4) | Implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure effective observance. | The control library reconciles each requirement to the control that satisfies it and the evidence that proves it, with gaps surfaced against named owners. |
An inability to produce records under a Sec. 28 inquiry does not attract its own penalty — it removes your defence against every other one. Evidence is what converts a control into a mitigation.
Solutions by industry
The sectors carrying the most DPDP exposure for this control, each with its own threat model and regulators.
A DPDP readiness walkthrough maps your obligations to the controls that already exist, and names the gaps that do not.
