About ComplyDP

ComplyDP helps Indian organisations operationalise the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. We combine Supreme Court–level legal judgment with product engineering so that notices, consent, grievance handling, and audit evidence are not only policy-compliant but also practical to run day to day.

This page introduces our mission, our leadership, and how we work with startups, mid-market companies, and large enterprises that process personal data in India or offer goods and services to people in India. We focus on defensible documentation, observable controls on websites and apps, and workflows that legal, security, and product teams can share.

The DPDP framework is not a checkbox exercise. Penalties under the Act’s Schedule can reach very high amounts for serious failures, particularly around security safeguards and breach-related obligations. At the same time, many obligations are judged from what you publish and how you operate in practice. ComplyDP is built to close that gap: we map requirements to checks, evidence, and remediation paths rather than generic templates alone.

Our team includes advocates and consultants with experience before the Supreme Court of India and High Courts, together with engineers who build automation for scans, consent management, and reporting. That mix matters because privacy law in India is still young: interpretation evolves, and tooling must stay aligned with both the statute and regulatory guidance as it emerges.

Whether you are preparing for your first DPDP programme, integrating India requirements alongside GDPR or SOC 2, or responding to board questions on data protection, ComplyDP aims to be a credible partner. Use our free tools to preview gaps, read our methodology for how we score public preparedness research, and contact us when you need implementation support tailored to your sector and risk profile.

We publish the India DPDP Preparedness Report as independent research based on publicly observable signals-privacy policies, cookie and consent surfaces, grievance pages, and related documentation-not on access to your internal systems. That distinction matters for legal teams reviewing our scores: the report shows documentation and surface-level readiness, not a statutory audit or certification.

Our dispute and correction process is open to any organisation that believes a public finding is wrong or outdated. We prioritise accuracy because reputational fairness and methodological integrity are core to research you can defend in front of regulators, boards, and customers.

If you are evaluating vendors, ask whether their roadmap is tied to Indian law text and Rules, whether evidence is retained per finding, and whether your team can export audit trails for internal sign-off. Those criteria shaped how we built ComplyDP and how we advise clients across fintech, health, SaaS, and traditional industries.