TL;DR: The Consent Manager is a new kind of regulated intermediary created by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and given shape by the DPDP Rules, 2025. It is a Board-registered company that runs an interoperable platform where you, the Data Principal, can give, review, manage, and withdraw consent across many businesses from one place. To register, an applicant must be an Indian company with a net worth of at least Rs 2 crore, sound governance, and a certified platform. A Consent Manager owes you a fiduciary duty and must stay independent of the Data Fiduciaries it serves. This post explains the mechanism end to end, separates it from the Account Aggregator system it is often confused with, and sets out what businesses should do before the obligations bite around 2026 to 2027.
On this page
- What a Consent Manager actually is
- Why the DPDP framework created this role
- How the consent flow works, step by step
- Registration conditions and the Rs 2 crore bar
- The obligations a Consent Manager must meet
- Data Fiduciary vs Consent Manager vs the Board
- How this differs from the Account Aggregator system
- What businesses must do to comply
- The timeline you are working against
- Risks, penalties, and open questions
- Frequently asked questions
- Where Niyam fits
What a Consent Manager actually is
Start with the plain words of the statute. The DPDP Act, 2023 defines a Consent Manager as a person registered with the Data Protection Board of India who acts as a single point of contact to enable a Data Principal to give, manage, review, and withdraw their consent through an accessible, transparent, and interoperable platform.
Read that definition slowly, because every clause carries weight.
“Person registered with the Board” means a Consent Manager is not a free-for-all category. You cannot simply call yourself one. You must apply to the Data Protection Board and clear a set of conditions before you can operate. This puts the role on the same footing as a licensed intermediary, not a casual vendor.
“Single point of contact” is the heart of the idea. Today, if you want to know which apps and websites hold your personal data, you have to log into each one, hunt for a buried privacy setting, and revoke access service by service. Most people never do this. A Consent Manager flips the model. It gives you one dashboard where every consent you have ever granted, through that manager, sits in front of you, ready to be reviewed or pulled.
“Give, manage, review, and withdraw” sets out the full lifecycle. The platform is not just a place to click “I agree” once. It must let you come back later, see what you agreed to, change your mind, and have that change take effect.
“Accessible, transparent, and interoperable” are the design requirements. Accessible means usable by ordinary people, including those who are not tech-savvy. Transparent means you can actually see what is happening to your data and your permissions. Interoperable is the most consequential word: a Consent Manager cannot be a walled garden. Its platform must work across Data Fiduciaries and, by design, across other registered Consent Managers, so that consent records can move and be recognised between systems.
The Tsaaro analysis of Consent Managers under the DPDP Rules puts it crisply: the Consent Manager is meant to be a neutral, user-facing layer that relays consent requests from Data Fiduciaries to Data Principals and records both the consents granted and the privacy notices that accompanied them.
One point trips people up immediately, so let us settle it now. Using a Consent Manager is not compulsory for businesses. The AZB & Partners note on Consent Managers is clear that Data Fiduciaries may continue to obtain consent directly, without engaging a Consent Manager, provided they can meet the DPDP Act’s notice, consent, withdrawal, and record-keeping standards on their own. The Consent Manager is an option, a piece of shared plumbing, not a gate every business must pass through.
Why the DPDP framework created this role
To understand why Parliament invented this intermediary, look at what consent looks like in practice today.
Consent on the open web is broken. You meet a cookie banner that nudges you toward “Accept all.” You install an app that asks for fourteen permissions on first launch and gives you no real way to say yes to some and no to others. You sign up for a service whose privacy policy runs to nine thousand words written by lawyers for lawyers. The legal fiction is that you have freely and knowingly agreed. The lived reality is that you clicked through because you wanted to get on with your life.
The DPDP framework wants consent to mean something. The Act says consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional, and unambiguous, given through a clear affirmative action. It also says withdrawing consent must be as easy as giving it. Those are fine words, but words alone do not change behaviour. Someone has to build the rails that make granular, revocable, portable consent practical at the scale of a billion people.
That is the gap the Consent Manager fills. Instead of every business reinventing a consent dashboard, and instead of every individual managing dozens of separate logins, the framework creates a regulated middle layer whose entire job is to hold consent honestly and make it easy to manage.
There is a deeper design philosophy underneath this. The Consent Manager concept builds on India’s Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture, usually shortened to DEPA. DEPA’s premise is that individuals should be able to share their own data, on their own terms, through consent intermediaries who never see the data themselves but who broker the permission to move it. The Sahamati explainer on consent-based sharing traces this lineage and shows how the financial sector pioneered it before the DPDP Act generalised the idea across every sector.
So the Consent Manager is not a bolt-on. It is the DPDP Act’s chosen instrument for turning the principle of meaningful consent into something a person can touch.
There is also a market-design reason for the role. Left to themselves, businesses have weak incentives to make withdrawal genuinely easy, because every withdrawal is a small loss of data they would rather keep. A regulated intermediary that owes its duty to the individual, not to the business, corrects that incentive. The manager has no reason to bury the withdraw button or to dark-pattern you into staying opted in. Its reputation, and its registration, depend on being a clean, trustworthy custodian of your choices. By moving the consent surface out of the hands of the party that profits from your data and into the hands of a neutral fiduciary, the framework tries to align the interface with your interest rather than the business’s.
That neutrality is the quiet genius of the design, and it is also where the whole thing can go wrong if the independence rules are not enforced, a tension we return to later in this piece.
How the consent flow works, step by step
The mechanics matter, because the whole value of the model lives in the flow of requests and records between three parties: the Data Principal (you), the Data Fiduciary (the business that wants your data), and the Consent Manager (the neutral broker).
Here is how a single consent transaction moves through the system.
Step 1: The business needs your data and a lawful basis. A Data Fiduciary, say a lending app or an insurance portal, wants to process your personal data. Under the DPDP Act its primary lawful basis is your consent, and that consent must be preceded or accompanied by a clear notice telling you what data is being collected and the purpose for which it will be used.
Step 2: The request is routed to your Consent Manager. Rather than presenting its own consent screen, the Data Fiduciary relays the consent request, and the accompanying privacy notice, to your registered Consent Manager. The Mondaq piece on interoperable consent platforms describes the Consent Manager as the entity that relays these requests and records the consents and the notices that preceded them.
Step 3: You see the request in one familiar place. The request lands in your Consent Manager dashboard, the same website or app you already use to view your permissions. You read the notice. You decide. Because the platform is built for clarity, you should be able to see exactly which fields are requested and for what purpose, and grant or refuse cleanly.
Step 4: Your decision is recorded and relayed. If you say yes, the Consent Manager logs the consent, with the notice attached, and signals the Data Fiduciary that it may proceed. If you say no, nothing is shared. The Consent Manager keeps an immutable record either way.
Step 5: You can review and withdraw at any time. Weeks later you open the same dashboard, see that the lending app still holds a live consent, and decide to revoke it. The framework requires that withdrawal be easy and immediate. The Consent Manager processes the withdrawal and notifies the Data Fiduciary, which must then stop processing on that basis and, subject to other legal duties, cease to retain the data.
It is worth pausing on what each party can and cannot see at each step. The Data Fiduciary sees the data it is entitled to once you consent, but it does not get to design the consent screen you saw or quietly widen the permission after the fact. The Consent Manager sees the request, the notice, and your decision, but not, in the cleanest designs, the underlying personal data itself. You see a single, plain-language summary of what is being asked, by whom, and for what, in a place you already trust. The architecture deliberately splits visibility so that no single party holds both the data and the power to manufacture consent for it.
Withdrawal deserves a closer look because it is where most existing consent systems quietly fail. Under the framework, pulling a consent must be as frictionless as granting it was, and the effect must reach the Data Fiduciary promptly rather than being lost in a support queue. In the Consent Manager model, you do not have to remember which of forty apps holds which permission. You open one dashboard, see the live consents in a list, and switch off the ones you no longer want. The manager carries the burden of telling each affected Data Fiduciary, and the Data Fiduciary then has to stop relying on that consent. This is the difference between a right that exists on paper and a right you can actually exercise on a Tuesday evening from your phone.
A crucial detail underlies all of this. In a properly designed Consent Manager model, the personal data itself does not necessarily flow through the Consent Manager. The manager handles the consent artefacts, the requests, the grants, the withdrawals, and the notices, while the underlying data moves directly between the relevant parties or is held by the Data Fiduciary. The Consent Manager is a manager of permission, not a warehouse of your data. That separation is what keeps it neutral and keeps the attack surface small.
The table below summarises who does what in the flow.
| Step | Actor | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Request | Data Fiduciary | Sends consent request and notice to the Consent Manager |
| Display | Consent Manager | Shows the request and notice to the Data Principal |
| Decision | Data Principal | Grants, refuses, or later withdraws consent |
| Record | Consent Manager | Logs the consent, notice, and any withdrawal |
| Relay | Consent Manager | Communicates the decision to the Data Fiduciary |
| Act | Data Fiduciary | Processes data only within the limits of the consent |
Registration conditions and the Rs 2 crore bar
You cannot run a Consent Manager on ambition alone. The DPDP Rules, 2025 set a real bar to entry, and the most quoted number is the net worth requirement.
The figure is Rs 2 crore. According to the First Schedule of the DPDP Rules as reproduced by dpdpa.in, one of the conditions of registration is that the financial condition and the general character of management of the applicant are sound, and the net worth of the applicant is not less than two crore rupees. Several practitioner summaries, including the Tsaaro governance analysis, restate the same figure. Note that Rs 2 crore equals Rs 20 million, which is why some international write-ups quote the rupee amount in millions.
Net worth is only one of the gates. The First Schedule conditions, read together, paint a picture of a serious, well-run, conflict-free entity. The headline conditions include the following.
- The applicant is a company incorporated in India.
- The applicant has sufficient technical, operational, and financial capacity to discharge its obligations as a Consent Manager.
- The financial condition and general character of management are sound, and net worth is at least Rs 2 crore.
- The volume of business likely to be available, the capital structure, and the earning prospects of the applicant are adequate.
- The directors, key managerial personnel, and senior management are persons of general reputation and proven fairness and integrity.
- The applicant’s interoperable platform for granting, managing, reviewing, and withdrawing consent is independently certified as conforming to the standards and assurance framework the Board publishes, with appropriate technical and organisational measures in place.
That last condition is easy to skim past but expensive to satisfy. You do not just self-declare that your platform works. You must obtain independent certification that your platform meets the Board’s published data protection standards. That means audits, security testing, and an architecture built to interoperate, not a hastily wired consent screen.
The table below collects the principal registration conditions in one view.
| Condition | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Incorporation | Company incorporated in India |
| Net worth | Not less than Rs 2 crore |
| Financial soundness | Sound financial condition and management; adequate capital structure |
| Capacity | Sufficient technical, operational, and financial capacity |
| Fit and proper | Directors and senior management of reputation, fairness, and integrity |
| Certified platform | Independently certified interoperable consent platform meeting Board standards |
A note for founders eyeing this market. The privacyglobal.org registration guide and reporting in Inc42 on the startup compliance burden both flag that the Rs 2 crore net worth condition, layered on top of certification and governance demands, sets a meaningful floor that will keep most early-stage startups out of the business of being a Consent Manager. That does not stop a startup from using one. It simply means the role of Consent Manager will likely be played by well-capitalised entities.
The obligations a Consent Manager must meet
Registration is the entry ticket. Once registered, a Consent Manager carries continuing duties that shape how it must behave.
The single most important obligation is the fiduciary one. The TaxTMI overview of Consent Managers and the AZB note both stress that a Consent Manager must act in a fiduciary capacity in relation to the Data Principal. In plain terms, the manager works for you, the individual, not for the businesses that send it consent requests. When the interests of a Data Principal and a Data Fiduciary collide, the manager must take the side of the Data Principal.
Flowing from that fiduciary duty is the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest. A Consent Manager must steer clear of conflicts with the Data Fiduciaries it serves, including conflicts involving its own promoters and key managerial personnel. The point is to prevent a large data-hungry business from quietly controlling the very intermediary that is supposed to keep it in check.
The other continuing obligations include:
- Operate an interoperable, user-facing platform. A website or app where Data Principals can give, review, manage, and withdraw consent, built to work across Data Fiduciaries and other Consent Managers.
- Relay requests and notices faithfully. Pass consent requests and the accompanying privacy notices from Data Fiduciaries to Data Principals without distortion.
- Record consent and maintain logs. Keep accurate records of consents granted, withdrawn, and the notices that preceded them. The digio.in compliance explainer notes that Consent Managers must retain audit trails of consents for at least seven years.
- Make withdrawal easy and immediate. Withdrawing consent must be no harder than giving it, and the effect must propagate quickly to the relevant Data Fiduciaries.
- Maintain security and accountability. Protect the consent records with appropriate technical and organisational measures and remain answerable to the Board, which can review the manager’s conduct and, in serious cases, suspend or cancel registration.
These duties together explain why the entry bar is high. A neutral fiduciary holding seven years of consent logs for potentially millions of people is critical infrastructure. The Rules treat it accordingly.
Data Fiduciary vs Consent Manager vs the Board
The DPDP framework runs on a small cast of defined roles. Confusing them is the fastest way to misread your obligations, so here is the clean separation.
The Data Principal is the individual the personal data is about. That is you. The framework exists to protect this person and to give them control.
The Data Fiduciary is the entity that, alone or with others, decides the purpose and means of processing personal data. This is the business: the app, the bank, the hospital, the retailer. The Data Fiduciary carries the heavy compliance load. It must give proper notice, secure a lawful basis, implement reasonable security safeguards, honour data principal rights, report breaches, and face the penalties when it fails.
The Consent Manager is the registered intermediary that gives the Data Principal a single, interoperable place to manage consent. It is itself accountable to the Board, owes a fiduciary duty to the Data Principal, and must stay independent of the Data Fiduciaries it serves.
The Data Protection Board of India is the regulator. It registers Consent Managers, inquires into complaints and breaches, directs remedial measures, and imposes monetary penalties. The Board has been formally established under the framework. If you want the wider picture of the Board’s role and the phased rollout that brings it to life, our companion explainer on the DPDP Rules 2025 walks through the full structure.
A worked contrast helps. Suppose a fintech app wants to pull your data to assess a loan. The app is the Data Fiduciary. You are the Data Principal. If the app routes its consent request through a registered Consent Manager, that manager displays the request, records your decision, and lets you revoke it later from one dashboard. If you complain that the app kept processing your data after you withdrew consent, the Data Protection Board is the body that investigates and can penalise the app.
| Role | Who | Core function | Liable for penalties? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Principal | The individual | Owns and controls their personal data | No |
| Data Fiduciary | The business | Decides purpose and means; must comply | Yes |
| Consent Manager | Registered intermediary | Neutral consent platform; fiduciary to the principal | Accountable to the Board |
| Data Protection Board | The regulator | Registers, investigates, penalises | Imposes penalties |
How this differs from the Account Aggregator system
This is the comparison that causes the most confusion, partly because the two look alike and partly because the same word, consent manager, appears in both worlds. Let us untangle it carefully, because getting this wrong leads businesses to assume they are already covered when they are not.
The Account Aggregator system came first. It is the financial-sector implementation of DEPA. Account Aggregators are non-banking financial companies licensed and regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. They let you share your financial data, your bank statements, your investment holdings, your tax records, between regulated financial entities, with your consent, without ever letting the aggregator read the data itself. The Sahamati piece reconciling the two frameworks describes how this ecosystem grew under RBI oversight, with industry bodies and ReBIT shaping the technical standards.
The DPDP Consent Manager is the general-purpose version of the same idea. It is regulated by the Data Protection Board under the DPDP Act, not by the RBI. It deals with personal data across every sector, not just finance. Health data, telecom data, e-commerce data, education data: all of it can flow through DPDP Consent Managers.
The Ikigai Law analysis and the Securiti explainer on DPDPA Consent Managers both make the key structural point: Account Aggregators are, in effect, sector-specific consent managers for finance. The expectation is that the two regimes will be read together rather than in conflict, with Account Aggregators potentially registering as Consent Managers for the financial sector so that the same entity satisfies both the RBI and the DPDP requirements where the activity overlaps.
The table below lays the two side by side.
| Dimension | Account Aggregator (DEPA) | DPDP Consent Manager |
|---|---|---|
| Regulator | Reserve Bank of India | Data Protection Board of India |
| Governing law | RBI framework, NBFC-AA | DPDP Act 2023 and DPDP Rules 2025 |
| Data scope | Financial data only | Personal data across all sectors |
| Primary purpose | Streamline financial data sharing | Manage consent for any personal data use |
| Existing maturity | Live ecosystem, operating for years | New, registration window opening from late 2026 |
| Relationship | Sector-specific consent manager for finance | General framework that can absorb the AA model |
The practical takeaway: if your business already plugs into the Account Aggregator network for financial data, that does not automatically make you DPDP-compliant for the rest of your personal data processing. The AA system covers the financial slice. The DPDP framework covers everything.
What businesses must do to comply
Most businesses reading this are not going to become Consent Managers. They are Data Fiduciaries that will either engage one or build compliant consent on their own. Either way, there is work to do, and the work does not wait for the Consent Manager ecosystem to mature.
Here is a practical sequence.
Map your personal data first. You cannot obtain valid consent for data flows you have not identified. Inventory every category of personal data you collect, the purpose for each, where it is stored, who you share it with, and how long you keep it. This data map is the foundation for everything else, and it is the step most organisations underestimate.
Rebuild your notices. The DPDP framework demands notices that are clear, itemised, and tied to specific purposes, available in English and the languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. The vague catch-all privacy policy will not survive. Each notice must let a person understand exactly what is collected and why before they consent.
Engineer consent as a lifecycle, not an event. Build, or procure, the ability to capture granular consent, record it with the notice attached, let people review what they granted, and let them withdraw as easily as they agreed. Whether you route this through a registered Consent Manager or run it yourself, the standard is the same. If you build it yourself, remember the AZB note point: you must independently meet the notice, consent, withdrawal, and record-keeping bar that a Consent Manager would otherwise carry.
Decide your Consent Manager strategy. Will you integrate with one or more registered Consent Managers when they go live, or handle consent in-house? For consumer-facing businesses with large user bases, integrating with an interoperable Consent Manager may reduce friction and signal good faith. For smaller or B2B operations, in-house consent may be simpler. Make this a deliberate decision, not a default.
Stand up breach and rights machinery. Independently of the Consent Manager question, you must be able to detect and report personal data breaches and to honour data principal requests for access, correction, and erasure within the framework’s expectations. These obligations sit on you as the Data Fiduciary regardless of how consent is collected.
Build the audit trail. Keep records that prove, after the fact, that you gave proper notice, obtained valid consent, and acted within it. When the Board comes asking, the burden is on you to show compliance. Reliable logs are your defence.
A common mistake is to treat consent as a legal-team problem to be solved with better policy text. It is not. It is an engineering problem with a legal specification. The notice has to render in multiple languages, the consent capture has to be granular and timestamped, the record has to bind the exact notice to the exact grant, and the withdraw flow has to propagate a state change through your systems and out to anyone you shared the data with. None of that is solved by a longer privacy policy. It is solved by product and engineering work that should be scoped and resourced now, while there is still slack in the calendar.
If you process personal data of individuals in India and you are not doing these things yet, the gap between where you are and where the law expects you to be is the gap you must close before the operating obligations land.
The timeline you are working against
The Consent Manager obligations do not all switch on at once, and the dates are the difference between calm preparation and a scramble.
The DPDP Rules, 2025 were notified on 13 November 2025 and published in the Gazette around 14 November 2025, as reported by India Briefing and confirmed in the Wikipedia summary of the DPDP Rules 2025. The Rules adopt a phased commencement so that the ecosystem can be built before it is relied upon.
For the Consent Manager specifically, the registration machinery is not immediate. Multiple analyses, including the Fisher Phillips compliance briefing and the SCC Online highlights of the notified framework, indicate that the Consent Manager registration rule takes effect roughly one year after notification, which points to a registration window opening around November 2026. The heaviest core operating obligations on Data Fiduciaries are expected to arrive later still, around the middle of 2027.
The phased dates create a planning window, not a holiday.
| Milestone | Approximate timing | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| Rules notified | 13 November 2025 | The framework is law; the clock starts |
| Board operational, early provisions | From notification | The regulator stands up |
| Consent Manager registration opens | Around November 2026 | Entities can apply to register |
| Core operating obligations | Around mid-2027 | Full compliance expected from Data Fiduciaries |
The lesson from past compliance regimes is consistent: the organisations that suffer are the ones that treat the final deadline as the start date. Data mapping, notice redesign, and consent engineering take quarters, not weeks. Begin now.
Risks, penalties, and open questions
The DPDP framework has teeth, and the consequences of getting consent wrong are not symbolic.
The penalty structure is steep. As confirmed in the Schedule of penalties on dpdpa.com and summarised by EY India, a Data Fiduciary that fails to take reasonable security safeguards and suffers a personal data breach can face a penalty of up to Rs 250 crore. Failure to notify the Board and affected individuals of a breach can attract up to Rs 200 crore. These are per-instance ceilings, and the Board has the power to set the amount within them based on the gravity of the conduct. Our overview of the DPDP Rules 2025 covers the full penalty schedule in more detail.
Beyond the headline numbers, there are structural concerns worth naming honestly. Commentators have flagged that the Consent Manager model, for all its promise, could be captured. A Legal Service India analysis raises the risk that large fiduciaries might use the framework to entrench their position, warning of vertical foreclosure, the exclusion of smaller civic-tech players, and what it calls the illusion of choice if interoperability is not genuinely enforced. The conflict-of-interest rules in the First Schedule exist precisely to guard against this, but rules on paper need active enforcement to mean anything.
Readiness is the other live worry. The Inc42 feature on startup compliance reports that, while awareness of the DPDP framework is rising, the depth of understanding and the maturity of implementation across Indian businesses remain uneven. Awareness is not the same as readiness, and many organisations have mapped neither their data nor their consent flows.
A few open questions remain genuinely unresolved as the ecosystem builds out. How exactly will interoperability between competing Consent Managers be technically standardised? How will the relationship between Account Aggregators and DPDP Consent Managers be formalised where the sectors overlap? How aggressively will the Board enforce the conflict-of-interest conditions against well-resourced players? These will be answered through guidance, certification standards, and the Board’s early decisions. Until then, the prudent posture is to over-prepare on the fundamentals you do control: your data map, your notices, your consent records.
For a sense of how careful legal reading prevents costly missteps in fast-moving regulation, our note on why good-law checking matters makes the broader case. And if you want to see how thoughtful statutory drafting reads in a different domain, our walkthrough of the Income Tax Act 2025 and the Consumer Protection Act 2019 show the same discipline applied elsewhere.
Frequently asked questions
Is my business required to use a Consent Manager?
No. Engaging a Consent Manager is optional. A Data Fiduciary may obtain consent directly, as long as it independently meets the DPDP standards for notice, consent, withdrawal, and record-keeping. The Consent Manager is shared infrastructure you may choose to plug into, not a mandatory gateway.
What is the net worth required to register as a Consent Manager?
Not less than Rs 2 crore, which is Rs 20 million. This is set out in the First Schedule of the DPDP Rules, 2025, alongside conditions on Indian incorporation, technical and operational capacity, sound governance, and an independently certified interoperable platform.
Who regulates Consent Managers?
The Data Protection Board of India, established under the DPDP Act. The Board registers Consent Managers, oversees their conduct, and can suspend or cancel a registration. It also investigates complaints and imposes penalties on Data Fiduciaries that breach the framework.
How long must consent records be kept?
Practitioner analysis of the Rules indicates that Consent Managers must retain consent records and audit trails for at least seven years. This durable record is central to the model, since it provides the evidence that consent was validly given and validly withdrawn.
How is a Consent Manager different from an Account Aggregator?
An Account Aggregator is an RBI-regulated entity that handles financial data only and predates the DPDP Act. A DPDP Consent Manager is regulated by the Data Protection Board and handles personal data across all sectors. The Account Aggregator is, in effect, the financial-sector instance of the broader consent manager idea, and the two regimes are expected to be read together where they overlap.
Does my personal data pass through the Consent Manager?
Generally no. The Consent Manager handles consent itself, the requests, grants, withdrawals, and the notices, while the personal data moves between the relevant parties or stays with the Data Fiduciary. The manager is a broker of permission, not a store of your data, which is what keeps it neutral.
When do the Consent Manager obligations actually start?
The Rules were notified on 13 November 2025. Consent Manager registration is expected to open around November 2026, roughly a year after notification, with the heavier core operating obligations on Data Fiduciaries arriving around mid-2027. Treat these as planning dates and start your data mapping and consent work now.
Where Niyam fits
Reading the DPDP Act, the Rules, the First Schedule, and a dozen practitioner notes to work out what a Consent Manager must do, and what you must do in response, is exactly the kind of slow, high-stakes research that swallows a lawyer’s afternoon. Niyam exists to compress that.
Niyam is a legal-AI platform built for Indian law. Ask it how the Consent Manager registration conditions read, how the DPDP penalty schedule applies to a breach, or how the Account Aggregator framework sits alongside the DPDP regime, and it answers with grounding in the actual statutes, rules, and judgments rather than guesswork. It is built to check the law, not to invent it.
You can start for Rs 100. Create an account at app.niyam.ai/register and put the Consent Manager framework, or any other slice of Indian law you are wrestling with, to the test.
The Consent Manager is one of the most consequential pieces of India’s new data protection settlement. Understand the mechanism now, prepare your data and consent flows in the planning window the law has given you, and you will meet the deadlines from a position of calm rather than crisis.
Sources: SCC Online DPDP Rules 2025 highlights, India Briefing on the notified Rules, Wikipedia: DPDP Rules 2025, Tsaaro on Consent Manager functions and governance, AZB & Partners on Consent Managers, First Schedule conditions on dpdpa.in, Mondaq on interoperable consent platforms, TaxTMI overview of Consent Managers, digio.in DPDP consent management explainer, Sahamati on reconciling AA and Consent Manager frameworks, Sahamati on consent-based sharing, Ikigai Law on Account Aggregators as consent managers, Securiti on DPDPA Consent Managers, privacyglobal.org registration guide, Fisher Phillips compliance briefing, EY India on the DPDP Act, DPDP penalty schedule on dpdpa.com, Inc42 on startup compliance burden, Legal Service India on Consent Manager capture risk.