SECTOR COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

FinTech

Comprehensive statutory controls framework mapped under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 for FinTech data fiduciaries.

What DPDP compliance looks like in practice: a digital lending NBFC

NovaCred is a digital lending NBFC registered with RBI, offering personal loans and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) products via a mobile app. Monthly loan disbursements: ₹180 crore. Active borrower base: 480,000. The underwriting model pulls data from 14 sources: bureau scores, GST filing history, UPI transaction metadata (via AA framework), employer verification databases, device data, and behavioural analytics from in-app usage patterns.

Under the DPDP Act 2023, NovaCred's data collection for underwriting is among the most legally complex in the sector. KYC and bureau checks fall under Section 7(b) legitimate use. But device data, in-app behavioural analytics, and UPI transaction metadata via AA require explicit, informed, granular consent under Section 6.

NovaCred's critical gap is in the Account Aggregator (AA) framework. When NovaCred uses AA-shared financial data for a purpose beyond the stated lending decision (e.g. building a credit scoring model for future customers using the borrower's data), it has exceeded the consent scope — a violation under both frameworks.

NovaCred's second gap is in rejection transparency. When a loan is rejected based on algorithmic credit scoring, the borrower has a right under Section 11 (right to information about processing) to understand, in general terms, why.

Critical Priority

High Priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority

Fintech companies and NBFCs face a compounded penalty risk: a single data incident can trigger simultaneous action from the Data Protection Board (up to ₹550 crore for a significant breach under Section 33(1)), the RBI (regulatory action under the RBI Act and Master Directions), and in some cases SEBI (for fintechs offering wealth management or securities products). The RBI's 2024 framework on digital lending imposes explicit data minimisation requirements — collecting device data or contact list data beyond what is necessary for the loan assessment is specifically prohibited. Any NBFC found to have violated both the DPDP Act and RBI digital lending guidelines faces dual enforcement.

Critical (Immediate Audit Required)

High (Core DPDP Mandate)

Medium (Operational Control)

Low (Documentation)

Children's & PwD Data 4 Controls

COM-CHD-02

Verifiable parental consent mechanism

🔍 Verification: Where applicable, confirm a technical/organisational mechanism exists to obtain verifiable consent from a parent before processing a child's personal data, with due diligence to confirm the parent is an identifiable adult (via reliable existing identity/age details, voluntarily provided details, or a virtual token via a Digital Locker service provider).

Critical

Section 9(1); Rule 10

COM-CHD-04

No detrimental processing, tracking or targeted advertising to children

🔍 Verification: Confirm the organisation does not process children's personal data in a way likely to cause a detrimental effect on their well-being, and does not undertake behavioural tracking/monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children.

Critical

Section 9(2)-(3)

COM-CHD-01

Screen whether the organisation processes children's personal data

🔍 Verification: Determine whether any Data Principal is, or may be, under 18 years of age (a 'child' under Section 2(f)) - e.g., minor nominees/beneficiaries, guardian-operated minor accounts/policies, or joint applicants. If not applicable, mark this section Not Applicable and document the basis for that conclusion.

High

Section 2(f), Section 9

COM-CHD-03

Verifiable guardian consent for persons with disability

🔍 Verification: Where applicable, confirm due diligence is performed to verify a lawful guardian of a person with disability is validly appointed (by a court, designated authority, or local level committee) before obtaining their consent for processing.

High

Rule 11

Consent 7 Controls

COM-CON-01

Consent meets the statutory standard

🔍 Verification: Confirm consent capture is free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous, involves a clear affirmative act (no pre-ticked boxes, no bundling consent to a loan/policy/account with consent to marketing), and is limited to personal data necessary for the specified purpose.

Critical

Section 6(1)

COM-CON-04

Consent withdrawal is as easy as giving consent

🔍 Verification: Confirm the mechanism to withdraw consent is comparably easy to the mechanism used to give it; confirm that upon withdrawal, processing based on that consent ceases within a reasonable time (including by Data Processors), without affecting the legality of prior processing or the continuation of the underlying contract (e.g., loan/policy) to the extent it relies on Section 7 rather than consent.

Critical

Section 6(4)-(6)

COM-CON-02

No invalid consent clauses

🔍 Verification: Review consent language, loan/policy/account-opening agreements and terms of use for clauses that would be invalid to the extent they infringe the Act/Rules or other law - e.g., purported waivers of the right to complain to the Board.

High

Section 6(2)

COM-CON-03

Consent request presented in plain language with contact details

🔍 Verification: Confirm every consent request is in clear and plain language, offers English/Eighth Schedule language options, and provides the business contact details of the DPO (if applicable) or the person authorised to respond to Data Principal communications.

High

Section 6(3)

COM-CON-06

Consent and notice records retained for burden of proof

🔍 Verification: Confirm the organisation can produce evidence, for any Data Principal, that a compliant notice was given and that consent was validly obtained, since the Data Fiduciary bears the burden of proof in any Board proceeding.

High

Section 6(10)

COM-CON-07

'Certain legitimate uses' basis is documented separately from consent

🔍 Verification: Where the organisation relies on a Section 7 legitimate use (e.g., 7(a) voluntarily provided data for a specified purpose, 7(b) State-provided subsidy/benefit/service, 7(i) employment-related processing) instead of consent, document the specific limb relied upon and why - do not blend legitimate-use processing into general consent language.

High

Section 7

COM-CON-05

Consent Manager readiness (if using/planning to use one)

🔍 Verification: If the organisation intends to route consent through a Consent Manager (including for Account Aggregator-linked financial data flows), confirm the Consent Manager is (or will be) registered with the Board once Rule 4 becomes active (13 Nov 2026), and that data-sharing arrangements with it are documented.

Medium

Section 6(7)-(9); Rule 4

Cross-Border Processing 3 Controls

COM-CB-01

Map jurisdictions, vendors and cloud regions receiving personal data

🔍 Verification: Identify every country/territory in which personal data is stored or processed, including cloud-hosting regions and offshore support/processing centres, and every foreign vendor/sub-processor involved.

High

Section 16

COM-CB-02

Monitor Central Government country-restriction notifications

🔍 Verification: The DPDP Act follows a 'restricted-country' (blacklist) approach, not a whitelist/adequacy approach - transfers are permitted by default except to countries or territories the Central Government specifically notifies as restricted. No such notification has been issued as of publication. Do not assume any particular country is either blocked or pre-approved; monitor for notifications.

Medium

Section 16(1)-(2)

COM-CB-03

Document cross-border transfer contractual arrangements

🔍 Verification: Confirm contracts with foreign vendors/group entities receiving personal data address security safeguards, breach notification and data-return/deletion consistent with the organisation's own obligations under the Act.

Medium

Section 16

Data Principal Rights 6 Controls

COM-DPR-02

Right to correction, completion, updating and erasure

🔍 Verification: Confirm a process exists to correct inaccurate/misleading data, complete incomplete data, update data, and erase data on request (unless retention is necessary for the specified purpose, an active contract, or legal/regulatory compliance).

Critical

Section 12

COM-DPR-01

Right to access information about processing

🔍 Verification: Confirm a process exists to give a Data Principal, on request, a summary of personal data processed and processing activities undertaken, plus the identities of other Data Fiduciaries/Data Processors with whom it has been shared (subject to the law-enforcement-sharing carve-out in Section 11(2)).

High

Section 11

COM-DPR-03

Right to grievance redressal

🔍 Verification: Confirm readily available means of grievance redressal exist, and that Data Principals are informed they must exhaust this internal route before approaching the Board.

High

Section 13

COM-DPR-05

Published rights-exercise mechanism and identity verification

🔍 Verification: Confirm the website/app prominently publishes the means to make a rights request and the identifying particulars (customer/policy/account/folio number, email, mobile number, etc.) needed to verify the requester, and that requests are only actioned for Data Principals who previously gave consent to that Data Fiduciary.

High

Rule 14(1)-(2), (5)

COM-DPR-04

Right to nominate

🔍 Verification: Confirm a mechanism exists for a Data Principal to nominate another individual to exercise their rights in the event of death or incapacity.

Medium

Section 14; Rule 14(4)

COM-DPR-06

Internal SLA and recordkeeping for rights requests

🔍 Verification: Confirm requests are logged, tracked to resolution within a defined internal SLA, and that records are retained to demonstrate timely handling.

Medium

Sections 11-14; Rule 14

FinTech - Industry-Specific 10 Controls

FIN-01

Role clarity - Data Fiduciary vs Data Processor per activity

🔍 Verification: For each product/activity, determine whether the FinTech is acting as a Data Fiduciary (e.g., for its own app account, wallet, or analytics) or as a Data Processor/Technology Service Provider processing on behalf of a regulated bank/NBFC partner - the applicable notice/consent and contractual obligations differ materially between the two roles, and a FinTech is commonly both, for different data flows within the same product.

Critical

Section 2(i), 2(k)

FIN-02

Partner bank/NBFC data processing agreement

🔍 Verification: Where the FinTech processes personal data on behalf of a partner bank/NBFC (as Data Processor), confirm a written DPA is in place addressing purpose limitation, security safeguards, sub-processor approval, breach escalation, and data return/erasure on termination, consistent with what the partner's own regulator (RBI) expects of its outsourcing arrangements.

Critical

Section 8(2)

FIN-07

UPI handle / VPA and payment-transaction data handling

🔍 Verification: Where the FinTech is a UPI-enabled app (PSP/TPAP), confirm payment-transaction personal data is stored in India per RBI's payment-system data-localisation requirement, and that VPA/transaction data used for any secondary purpose (e.g., spend analytics, offers) is separately disclosed and consented to beyond the payment-processing purpose itself.

Critical

NPCI UPI procedural guidelines; RBI payment-system data-localisation circular

FIN-09

App permission minimisation (contacts, SMS, camera, location)

🔍 Verification: Confirm the app requests only the device permissions genuinely necessary for the specific service (avoiding blanket access to contacts, SMS, gallery, call logs), with each sensitive permission separately explained and consented to, consistent with both DPDP data-minimisation expectations and RBI Digital Lending Guidelines where lending-adjacent.

Critical

Section 6(1)

FIN-03

Account Aggregator / consent-artifact data flows

🔍 Verification: Where the FinTech accesses customer financial information via an Account Aggregator using a consent artifact, confirm the AA-consent flow (purpose, data categories, duration, revocability) is itself compliant with the AA framework and that the FinTech does not treat the AA consent artifact as also satisfying separate DPDP notice/consent obligations for its own onward processing of that data beyond the AA-authorised purpose.

High

RBI Master Direction - Non-Banking Financial Company - Account Aggregator (NBFC-AA), 2016 and successors; overlaps with DPDP Section 6

FIN-04

Phase-out of screen-scraping / credential-based data access

🔍 Verification: Where the FinTech historically obtained financial data via screen-scraping or by asking users to share net-banking/email credentials, confirm a migration plan to consented, API-based data access (e.g., via Account Aggregators), since credential-sharing models are both a DPDP consent-quality risk (data collected beyond what is specifically consented to) and a security risk flagged by RBI.

High

RBI's regulatory direction (via AA framework) to move away from screen-scraping/credential-sharing models

FIN-05

Embedded finance / BNPL - multi-lender data sharing disclosure

🔍 Verification: Where a checkout-financing or BNPL flow shares a user's application data with multiple potential lenders for underwriting, confirm the notice clearly discloses this multi-recipient sharing, that consent is not presumed from mere use of the checkout flow, and that unsuccessful applicants' data held by non-selected lenders has a defined retention/deletion period.

High

Sections 5, 6

FIN-08

Fraud/AML analytics and consortium data sharing

🔍 Verification: Where personal/transaction data is shared with fraud-detection consortiums or industry-wide AML utilities, confirm the lawful basis (e.g., compliance with law) is documented, sharing is limited to necessary data, and receiving parties are bound by confidentiality/security obligations.

High

Sections 7(d), 8(2)-(3)

FIN-10

Significant Data Fiduciary readiness given user-base scale

🔍 Verification: Given that many consumer FinTech apps operate at large registered-user scale and process sensitive financial data, treat SDF designation as a plausible future outcome and consider voluntary readiness (DPO, audit, DPIA, algorithmic due diligence capability) ahead of any notification.

High

Section 10(1)

FIN-06

Prepaid Payment Instrument (wallet) KYC data

🔍 Verification: Where the FinTech issues or facilitates a wallet/PPI, confirm minimum-KYC and full-KYC data collected is consistent with the RBI PPI Master Direction, and that DPDP notice/security safeguards apply equally to wallet KYC data as to other financial identity data.

Medium

RBI Master Direction on Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPIs); overlaps with DPDP notice/security requirements

Governance & Applicability 6 Controls

COM-GOV-01

Determine DPDP Act applicability to the organisation

🔍 Verification: Confirm whether the organisation processes digital personal data of individuals within India, personal data collected in non-digital form and later digitised, or processes personal data of Data Principals in India from outside India in connection with offering goods or services to them. Confirm whether any processing falls under the personal/domestic-purpose exclusion or the publicly-available-data exclusion under Section 3(c).

Critical

Section 3

COM-GOV-02

Identify Data Fiduciary and Data Processor role(s)

🔍 Verification: For each processing activity, determine whether the organisation determines the purpose and means of processing (Data Fiduciary) or processes personal data on behalf of another entity (Data Processor) under a contract. An organisation can be both, for different activities.

Critical

Section 2(i), 2(k)

COM-GOV-03

Complete an initial personal-data processing map

🔍 Verification: Before assessing any other control, produce a first-pass map of what personal data is processed, for what purpose, and by which function - this map is the basis for the Data Inventory section below and for every subsequent control.

Critical

Sections 4-8 (foundational)

COM-GOV-04

Assign internal privacy governance responsibility

🔍 Verification: Nominate an accountable owner (formal Data Protection Officer if a Significant Data Fiduciary; otherwise a designated privacy/compliance owner) with authority to run this programme, coordinate with IT/HR/Legal/Vendor Management, and respond to Board or Data Principal communications.

High

Section 8(1), 8(9)-(10)

COM-GOV-05

Adopt an internal DPDP compliance policy/framework

🔍 Verification: Document an internal policy covering notice/consent standards, security safeguards, breach response, retention/erasure, Data Principal rights handling, and vendor management, consistent with this checklist.

High

Section 8(4) (general obligation to implement measures)

COM-GOV-06

Track commencement notifications and regulatory developments

🔍 Verification: Because the Act and Rules commence in phases (13 Nov 2025 / 13 Nov 2026 / 13 May 2027) and several matters are pending further Central Government notification (e.g., cross-border restricted-country list, Significant Data Fiduciary designation, data-localisation categories), assign someone to monitor the Official Gazette and MeitY announcements and update this checklist accordingly.

Medium

Section 1(2); Rule 1

Grievance Management 4 Controls

COM-GRI-01

Publish DPO/contact person business contact information

🔍 Verification: Confirm the business contact information of the DPO (if applicable) or another person able to answer Data Principal questions about processing is prominently published on the website/app, and included in every response to a rights-related communication.

High

Section 8(9); Rule 9

COM-GRI-02

Effective grievance redressal mechanism, distinguished from sectoral ombudsman/grievance routes

🔍 Verification: Confirm an effective mechanism exists to redress Data Principal grievances relating to processing of their personal data specifically (as distinct from, and in addition to, any sectoral customer-grievance or ombudsman mechanism already in place).

High

Section 8(10)

COM-GRI-03

Published response timeline not exceeding the prescribed period

🔍 Verification: Confirm the published grievance-response timeline does not exceed the period prescribed for the relevant class of Data Fiduciary, and that operational capacity exists to meet it.

Medium

Rule 14(3)

COM-GRI-04

Grievance tracking and escalation records

🔍 Verification: Maintain a log of grievances received, actions taken, and time to resolution, including escalation where the internal route is exhausted and the Data Principal may approach the Board.

Medium

Supports Section 8(10) and 13(2)-(3)

Notice 5 Controls

COM-NOT-01

Notice content meets statutory minimum

🔍 Verification: Verify every consent-seeking notice discloses, in clear and plain language: (a) an itemised description of the personal data being collected; (b) the specified purpose(s) and specific description of the goods/services or uses enabled; (c) how to exercise rights under Section 6(4) and Section 13; and (d) how to complain to the Board.

Critical

Section 5(1); Rule 3(b)

COM-NOT-02

Notice is presented independently and understandably

🔍 Verification: Confirm the notice can be understood on its own, without needing to cross-refer to other documents (e.g., a separate terms-of-service, loan agreement, or policy wording) to make sense of what is being collected and why.

High

Rule 3(a)

COM-NOT-03

Notice accompanies or precedes every consent request

🔍 Verification: Confirm the onboarding/application workflow shows the notice to the Data Principal at or before the point consent is sought - not buried afterwards, in fine print, or only on request.

High

Section 5(1)

COM-NOT-04

Legacy (pre-commencement) consents re-notified

🔍 Verification: For Data Principals who gave consent before the relevant provisions commenced (e.g., existing customers/policyholders/account holders), plan to notify them, as soon as reasonably practicable after commencement, describing the personal data and purpose of processing, their rights, and how to complain to the Board. Consent given earlier remains valid until withdrawn.

High

Section 5(2)

COM-NOT-05

Notice available in English and Eighth Schedule languages

🔍 Verification: Confirm the Data Principal has the option to access the notice in English or any language listed in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India, at least on request.

Medium

Section 5(3)

Personal Data Breach 6 Controls

COM-BR-01

Breach detection and internal escalation workflow

🔍 Verification: Confirm an incident-response process exists to detect a personal data breach and escalate it internally without delay to the accountable privacy/security owner.

Critical

Section 8(6)

COM-BR-02

Data Principal intimation - content and channel

🔍 Verification: Confirm the breach-notification template covers: description of the breach (nature, extent, timing), consequences relevant to the Data Principal, mitigation measures taken/being taken, safety measures the Data Principal can take, and business contact details for queries - and that it can be delivered via the Data Principal's user account or registered communication channel without delay.

Critical

Rule 7(1)

COM-BR-03

Board intimation - immediate description

🔍 Verification: Confirm a process exists to intimate the Board without delay of the breach's nature, extent, timing, location of occurrence and likely impact upon becoming aware of it.

Critical

Rule 7(2)(a)

COM-BR-04

Board intimation - detailed report within 72 hours

🔍 Verification: Confirm a process exists to provide the Board, within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach (or such longer period as the Board allows on written request): updated/detailed description, facts/circumstances/reasons, mitigation measures, findings on the cause, remedial measures taken, and a report of the intimations given to affected Data Principals.

Critical

Rule 7(2)(b)

COM-BR-05

Breach register and evidence preservation

🔍 Verification: Confirm all actual and suspected breaches are logged in a central register with timeline, actions taken, and outcomes, and that relevant forensic evidence is preserved for investigation.

High

Section 8(6); Rule 7

COM-BR-06

Coordination with sectoral breach/incident reporting

🔍 Verification: Where the organisation is separately required to report cyber incidents/breaches to a sector regulator or CERT-In, confirm the DPDP breach workflow and the sectoral incident-reporting workflow are coordinated so timelines and facts are consistent across both filings.

High

See sector regulator's cyber-security/incident-reporting framework

Personal Data Inventory 5 Controls

COM-INV-01

Maintain a Record of Processing Activities (ROPA)

🔍 Verification: Document, per processing activity: categories of personal data processed, categories of Data Principals, purpose, and source of collection (direct from Data Principal, third party, public record, etc.).

Critical

Sections 4, 5, 8 (implied by notice/consent/accountability obligations)

COM-INV-04

Document lawful basis per processing activity

🔍 Verification: For each processing activity in the ROPA, record whether the lawful basis is Data Principal consent (Section 6) or one of the 'certain legitimate uses' (Section 7, e.g., voluntarily provided data for a specified purpose, employment purposes, compliance with law, medical emergency). Do not default every activity to 'consent' - Section 7 uses have distinct conditions.

Critical

Sections 4, 6, 7

COM-INV-02

Map storage systems and internal access

🔍 Verification: Identify which systems (core banking/policy admin/trading systems, CRM, cloud storage, on-prem servers, email) store each category of personal data, and which internal roles/departments have access.

High

Section 8(4)-(5) (security accountability)

COM-INV-03

Map external recipients, processors and cross-border flows

🔍 Verification: List every third party (Data Fiduciary or Data Processor) that receives personal data, including technology vendors, KYC/verification agencies, credit bureaus, reinsurers, auditors, and group companies, and note the country/jurisdiction in which each holds or processes the data.

High

Sections 8(2)-(3), 11(1)(b), 16

COM-INV-05

Map retention periods and deletion triggers

🔍 Verification: For each data category, record the intended retention period, the event that triggers deletion (purpose fulfilled, consent withdrawn, statutory retention period under another law), and whether the organisation falls within any class specified in the Third Schedule to the Rules.

High

Section 8(7)-(8); Rule 8

Processors & Vendors 6 Controls

COM-PROC-02

Valid written contract with every processor

🔍 Verification: Confirm engagement of a Data Processor for any activity related to offering goods/services to Data Principals is under a valid written contract, since the Data Fiduciary remains responsible for compliance regardless of any contrary agreement (Section 8(1)).

Critical

Section 8(2)

COM-PROC-05

Processor breach-escalation obligations

🔍 Verification: Confirm DPAs require the processor to notify the Data Fiduciary promptly of any personal data breach, with enough detail to allow the Data Fiduciary to meet its own Board/Data Principal intimation timelines.

Critical

Section 8(6); Rule 7

COM-PROC-01

Inventory of all Data Processors/vendors

🔍 Verification: Cross-check the vendor list (core system providers, cloud hosting, KYC/verification agencies, collections agencies, marketing platforms, IT support, auditors, etc.) against the personal-data map to identify every processor handling personal data on the organisation's behalf.

High

Section 2(k)

COM-PROC-03

Contractual security and confidentiality flow-down

🔍 Verification: Confirm DPAs contain appropriate provisions requiring the processor to take reasonable security safeguards and maintain confidentiality, and address sub-processor engagement and oversight - particularly for outsourced/offshored processing, consistent with applicable outsourcing directions of the sector regulator.

High

Rule 6(1)(f)

COM-PROC-04

Contractual erasure/return obligations

🔍 Verification: Confirm DPAs require the processor to erase personal data made available to it when the Data Fiduciary is required to erase it (on consent withdrawal or purpose fulfilment), unless retention is required by law.

High

Section 8(7)(b)

COM-PROC-06

Pre-onboarding and periodic vendor security due diligence

🔍 Verification: As good practice supporting the Section 8(5) security obligation (and typically required separately under sector-regulator outsourcing norms), assess a vendor's security posture before onboarding and periodically thereafter.

Medium

Not mandated by name in the Act/Rules

Retention & Deletion 4 Controls

COM-RET-01

Erasure on consent withdrawal or purpose fulfilment

🔍 Verification: Confirm personal data is erased once the Data Principal withdraws consent, or once it is reasonable to assume the specified purpose is no longer being served, unless retention is necessary for compliance with law (including sectoral record-retention directions - see industry-specific section).

Critical

Section 8(7)(a), 8(8), 8(11)

COM-RET-02

Cause processors to erase data in parallel

🔍 Verification: Confirm that when the organisation is required to erase personal data, it also causes each engaged Data Processor to erase the personal data made available to it for processing.

High

Section 8(7)(b)

COM-RET-04

Documented retention schedule reconciled with sectoral retention law

🔍 Verification: Confirm a retention schedule exists mapping each data category to a retention period justified by either ongoing purpose or a specific other-law requirement, reconciling any tension between DPDP erasure triggers and mandatory sectoral record-keeping periods (see industry-specific section), and that deletion (including from backups, where feasible) is actually carried out on schedule once permitted.

High

Section 8(7)

COM-RET-03

General minimum one-year data/log retention

🔍 Verification: Rule 8(3) requires a Data Fiduciary to retain personal data, associated traffic data and other processing logs for a minimum of one year for the purposes specified in the Seventh Schedule, after which they must be erased unless further retention is required by law. Confirm scope with counsel rather than assuming it does or does not apply.

Medium

Rule 8(3); Seventh Schedule

Security Safeguards 7 Controls

COM-SEC-01

Data security measures (encryption/masking/tokenisation)

🔍 Verification: Confirm appropriate data security measures are in place, such as encryption, obfuscation, masking, or use of virtual tokens mapped to personal data, at a minimum - particularly for financial identifiers, government ID numbers and account/policy numbers.

Critical

Rule 6(1)(a)

COM-SEC-02

Access control to computer resources

🔍 Verification: Confirm appropriate measures control access to the computer resources used to process personal data (role-based access, least privilege, dual control for sensitive financial data, authentication).

Critical

Rule 6(1)(b)

COM-SEC-06

Documented technical and organisational measures generally

🔍 Verification: Confirm an overarching information-security programme documents the technical and organisational measures taken to ensure effective observance of the Act and Rules and prevent personal data breach.

Critical

Section 8(4)-(5); Rule 6(1)(g)

COM-SEC-03

Logging, monitoring and review for unauthorised access

🔍 Verification: Confirm appropriate logs, monitoring and review processes are in place to enable detection, investigation and remediation of unauthorised access.

High

Rule 6(1)(c)

COM-SEC-04

Backup and continuity measures

🔍 Verification: Confirm reasonable measures (e.g., data backups) exist for continued processing in the event confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal data is compromised through destruction or loss of access.

High

Rule 6(1)(d)

COM-SEC-05

Minimum one-year retention of security logs

🔍 Verification: Confirm logs and personal data relevant to detecting/investigating unauthorised access and supporting continued processing are retained for at least one year, unless another law requires otherwise.

Medium

Rule 6(1)(e)

COM-SEC-07

Vulnerability management, testing and employee security training

🔍 Verification: As best practice supporting the general security obligation (and typically also required under sector-regulator IT/cyber-security directions), run periodic vulnerability assessments/penetration testing and employee security-awareness training.

Medium

Not mandated by name in the Act/Rules

Significant Data Fiduciary Screening 4 Controls

COM-SDF-01

Monitor for Central Government SDF notification

🔍 Verification: No general list of Significant Data Fiduciaries has been notified as of the publication date of this checklist. Monitor Central Government notifications, which will designate specific Data Fiduciaries or classes based on volume/sensitivity of data processed, risk to Data Principal rights, potential impact on sovereignty/integrity, risk to electoral democracy, security of the State, and public order. Given the volume and sensitivity of financial data typically processed, financial-sector entities are a plausible category for future designation - do NOT self-classify as an SDF without a notification or documented legal assessment.

High

Section 10(1)

COM-SDF-02

If designated - appoint India-based DPO

🔍 Verification: If and when notified as an SDF, appoint a Data Protection Officer based in India, reporting to the Board of Directors or equivalent governing body, who acts as the point of contact for grievance redressal.

High

Section 10(2)(a)

COM-SDF-03

If designated - appoint an independent data auditor

🔍 Verification: If and when notified as an SDF, appoint an independent data auditor to evaluate compliance with the Act.

High

Section 10(2)(b)

COM-SDF-04

If designated - periodic DPIA, audit and algorithmic due diligence

🔍 Verification: If and when notified as an SDF, undertake a Data Protection Impact Assessment and audit at least once every 12 months, furnish a report of significant observations to the Board, and observe due diligence that algorithmic/technical measures (e.g., credit-scoring or fraud-detection models) do not pose a risk to Data Principal rights.

High

Section 10(2)(c); Rule 13(1)-(3)

Regulatory overlap: FinTech and related compliance frameworks

DPDP Act + RBI Digital Lending Guidelines + AA Framework + SEBI

Obligation	DPDP Act 2023	RBI / AA Framework / SEBI	Practical resolution
KYC data collection	Section 7(b): compliance with law (RBI KYC Master Direction) is a legitimate use — consent not required for minimum-necessary KYC	RBI KYC Master Direction 2016 (updated 2024): mandatory KYC for all regulated entity customers.	Document KYC as Section 7(b) processing. Any KYC data used beyond regulatory compliance requires separate consent.
Account Aggregator (AA) data	Section 6: AA consent is consent under the DPDP Act. Purpose limitation applies — data shared for loan underwriting cannot be used for model training without fresh consent.	RBI AA Framework (2021): consent artefact specifies the purpose, date range, and data types.	Maintain a purpose-locked data environment for AA-shared data. Implement technical controls preventing AA data from entering general ML pipelines.
Device data / contact list access	Section 6: explicit consent required for each type of device data. Purpose must be specified.	RBI Digital Lending Guidelines 2022: collection of contact list, call log, and media data prohibited except where explicitly needed.	Audit your app permissions. Remove any permission not strictly necessary for the lending decision. Build just-in-time consent UI for remaining permissions.
Algorithmic credit decision transparency	Section 11: Data Principal has the right to information about processing. For a consequential decision (loan rejection), the borrower should receive meaningful information.	RBI Fair Practices Code for NBFCs: requires communication of reasons for loan rejection.	Build a rejection explanation system: generate a human-readable summary of the top 3–5 factors that influenced the decision.

The underwriting model and purpose limitation

The most common DPDP compliance gap in fintech lending is purpose creep in the ML pipeline. A borrower consents to sharing their UPI transaction history to assess their loan eligibility. Their data then flows into a centralised data lake where it is used to train a credit scoring model that will be applied to future applicants. The original consent covered an assessment of this borrower's eligibility — it did not cover contributing their financial behaviour to a model that benefits the NBFC's future operations. Fintechs must implement data purpose tagging at the point of ingestion and technical controls that prevent data from migrating outside its consent scope.

NEED PROFESSIONAL IMPLEMENTATION?

Get a Comprehensive FinTech Compliance Audit

Our certified data protection lawyers & technical auditors deliver gap analysis, automated consent proof-chains, and custom notice draft packs.

Take Online Self-Assessment Request Full Audit Proposal →