Digital Succession in India: Balancing Privacy and Property 

Introduction

The law of inheritance has traditionally evolved around the physical world namely land, jewellery, bank deposits, and shares in family businesses. However, an increasing portion of both personal life and economic value now exists in digital form. Modern estates may include cryptocurrencies, monetised social media accounts, digital businesses, cloud-stored intellectual property, subscription-based platforms, and extensive personal data archives. 

Unlike tangible assets, digital footprints persist beyond death, governed by platform policies, contractual terms, and emerging legal frameworks. This raises a complex legal question: 

Who controls a deceased person’s digital presence? the nominee designated under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”), or the legal heirs entitled under succession law? 

The resolution lies in balancing informational privacy with proprietary rights. 

Emergence of Digital Nomination

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 introduces a significant development in Indian data protection law. Under Section 14, a Data Principal may nominate another individual to exercise their rights in the event of death or incapacity. 

These rights include: 

• Access to personal data;  
• Correction of inaccuracies;  
• Erasure of personal data.  

The objective is to ensure continuity of control and prevent misuse or inaccessibility of digital accounts after death. However, the DPDP Act is fundamentally a privacy legislation. It regulates the processing of personal data and safeguards informational autonomy. It does not explicitly govern the devolution or ownership of digital assets, particularly where such assets have independent economic value. 

This distinction becomes critical in the context of digital succession. 

Digital Data as an Asset

The digital economy increasingly blurs the line between information and property. Assets such as cryptocurrency holdings, domain names, monetised content, customer databases, and cloud-based intellectual property may possess substantial commercial value. 

Indian courts have begun recognising this evolution. In Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd.¹, the Madras High Court acknowledged that cryptocurrency constitutes property, capable of being owned and transferred despite its intangible nature. 

Once classified as property, such assets fall within the ambit of succession laws, whether governed by testamentary instruments (wills) or personal succession statutes. 

Under settled principles, nomination does not ordinarily confer beneficial ownership. Instead, a nominee is typically regarded as a custodian or trustee who holds the asset on behalf of the legal heirs (as recognised in multiple rulings, including banking and securities jurisprudence). 

Applying this principle, a nominee under Section 14 of the DPDP Act cannot automatically override inheritance rights where digital assets form part of the deceased’s estate. 

The Core Conflict: Privacy vs. Inheritance

The tension arises because digital content serves dual functions: 

1. Personal Data (Privacy-Oriented)

Includes emails, chats, photographs, browsing history, and other sensitive information.  

• Engages the right to informational privacy and dignity (linked to Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India).  
• Justifies control by a nominee, including potential erasure.  

2. Commercial Digital Assets (Property-Oriented) 

Includes cryptocurrencies, monetised platforms, digital businesses, and intellectual property. 

• Possess economic value;  
• Are analogous to traditional inheritable property.  

For example, if a deceased individual operated a profitable digital business, unilateral erasure of associated data by a nominee could destroy estate value, potentially prejudicing legal heirs. Conversely, unrestricted access by heirs to deeply personal data may infringe privacy interests. 

The DPDP Act does not explicitly resolve this conflict. 

Harmonious Interpretation of Section 14

In the absence of explicit statutory guidance, a harmonious construction is necessary. Section 14 should be interpreted as enabling nominees to exercise privacy-related rights, without displacing the law of succession governing proprietary interests. Accordingly: 

• Where digital content is purely personal and non-commercial, the nominee’s authority should prevail;  
• Where digital assets have discernible economic value, ownership should devolve under succession law, with the nominee playing a facilitative (not determinative) role. 

This interpretation aligns with constitutional protections of property under Article 300A, while preserving informational autonomy. 

The Regulatory Gap

Despite its progressive framework, the DPDP Act leaves several issues unresolved: 

• No clear distinction between personal data and economically valuable digital assets;  
• Absence of a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism between nominees and legal heirs;  
• Uncertainty regarding the scope of a nominee’s power to erase data, particularly where such data has commercial implications.  

As digital wealth grows, these ambiguities are likely to give rise to complex litigation. Regulatory clarification such as data preservation obligations for potentially valuable assets or structured adjudication mechanisms would enhance legal certainty. 

The Importance of Digital Estate Planning

Pending legislative clarity, individuals must proactively address digital succession. A well-drafted will should clearly provide for: 

• Access to and control of digital accounts;  
• Treatment of cryptocurrencies and online investments;  
• Continuity of digital businesses and monetisation channels;  
• Ownership and licensing of intellectual property.  

Digital estate planning is no longer optional but a critical component of modern succession strategy. 

Conclusion

The interplay between nominees under the DPDP Act and legal heirs under succession law reflects a broader transformation in how law conceptualises identity, ownership, and legacy in the digital age. 

While the DPDP Act preserves informational autonomy beyond death, succession law ensures the orderly transfer of economic interests. These frameworks must be harmonised rather than viewed in conflict. 

A principled approach, distinguishing between privacy-centric data and property-like digital assets offers a workable solution until legislative or judicial clarity evolves further.