Nevertheless, freedom of the press in India is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. The press, including print, television, radio, and internet are nominally amended to express their concerns under the selected provisions such as Article-19 (which became effective from 1950), though it states freedom of "occupation, trade or business" and "freedom of speech and expression" without naming "press" in clause "a" and "g".[2][3][4][5] The article allows a journalist or media industries to cover any story and bring it to the audiences without impacting the national security of the country.[6]
To protect the intellectual, moral, and fundamental rights of the citizens, the government has taken several countermeasures to combat circulating fake news and restricting objectionable contents across the multiple platforms. The law of India prohibits spreading or publishing fake news through social or mass media, and could lead to imprisonment of a journalist or newspaper ban.[7][8]
Global ranking
In 2023, India's ranking slipped from 150 in 2022 to 161, out of 180 countries, in terms of press freedom according to the Reporters Without Borders'Press Freedom Index, with the organization stating that the situation for journalists was "very serious" in the country.[9] India's global index rank has declined for several reasons, such as killings of journalists, restrictions imposed on news media, censorship in Kashmir, and ongoing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir which has been a subject of dispute between India and Pakistan.[10] Targeting victims such as physical abuse against journalists and prejudice is another reason for the decline in the world ranking index.[11] The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting criticised the report published by the Reporters Without Borders in 2020 citing "the surveys portray a bad picture about freedom of press in India" and the index has also been criticized by Indian news outlets such as The Hindu to portray press freedom in India as comparable to absolute dictatorships like Turkey and occupied state of Palestine.[12][13]
The Coalition of Women in Journalism documented 145 threats and intimidation against women, the third highest number of intimidation cases against female reporters.[14]Committee to Protect Journalists’ 2019 Global Impunity Index, records that India comes 13th in its list of countries where murderers of journalists do not face justice.[15]
History
In 1956, a private bill introduced by Feroz Gandhi called Parliamentary Proceedings became a crucial law in the history of Indian press freedom,[16] but this law was repealed by the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the Emergency in 1975.[16] As part of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi heavily restricted the press, banning all domestic and international news, expelling many foreign journalists and correspondents and revoking the accreditation of over 40 Indian reporters.[17] Many historians believe that she was intimidated by the growing criticism of her government and feared that the press was supporting the movement started by Jayaprakash Narayan.[17]
The constitution of India protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, however, critics state that press freedom is restrained, and the government only encourages speech that supports it and the prevailing ruling party.[18]
In the current day, news journalism that shows bias in covering news favorable to the ruling BJP government is subject to criticism in the country, often discussed under a popularized name, Godi media, meaning 'lapdog media' as well as a play on words for the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi.[19] Journalists that covers the economic and political problems in the country, or criticisms of the government are sometimes subject to threats by government bodies utilizing colonial-era laws relating to sedition, defamation and anti-state activities, a tactic that has become increasingly common.[20] Under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA act) individuals accused of anti-state activities can be arrested without a trial, where release can be delayed for years, often through malicious compliance, and which also makes it difficult to procure bail. It has been used against journalists and is documented to be rapidly rising in the number of cases.[21] The act is criticized for abysmally low conviction rate which is around 2%, with 97.5% of the people arrested under UAPA in 2016-2020, remained under prison awaiting trial.[22] The BJP government has been criticized for frequent and excessive misuse of act and has recorded 73 of 154 of documented cases in 2010-2020, being issued in BJP ruling states.[23][24] In 2020, the Press Council of India (PCI), a state-owned body, argued that government authorities', including state police's, censorship on mass media was unfavorable, citing intimidation of journalists and the curtailment of press freedom and described journalists were that were charged with sedition and criminal prosecution charges by the authorities as a "string of seemingly malafide actions".[25][26][27]
The Modi government has also introduced several new laws that give the government extraordinary power to control the media, including the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.[20] The government is also criticized for undermining Right to Information Act (RTI Act), 2005 where chief positions in the concerned regulatory body, Central Information Commission (CIC), appointed are often from favorable political background sometimes bypassing standard process, regularly withholds information citing handful of Supreme Court and High Court judgements, long and unjustified delays in the process, and lack of accountability or even use of existing accountability measures.[28] The recently implemented Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act that expands definition of "personal information" to limit disclosure of information under RTI has been criticized to further limit RTI act.[29] Journalists and activists involved in application of Right to Information for their investigation are often harassed, abducted or even murdered. Right to be forgotten poses as an emerging new method through which individuals take action of censorship as well as to hide publicly available legal documents and is contributing to slow erosion of press freedom in the country.[30][31]
Regulatory bodies can often enforce pressure on news media under influence of political power. For example, in February 2023, the government raided the offices of the BBC, accusing it of corruption and tax evasion, shortly after it aired a documentary (which the government banned) critical of Modi for his involvement in the alleged state-sponsored anti-Muslim violence in his home state of Gujaratin 2002 during his chief-ministership. The PCI called the case a "clear cut case of vendetta" although government officials have denied connections to it.[32]
Indian news media is primarily funded by advertising revenue which the government forms a majority contribution. The government enforces pressure on offending news journals through removal of advertising funding.[33][34] News media landscape in India in the current times shows centralization of media ownership. The Delhi union of journalists criticized actions of Indian billionares, Gautam Adani led Adani group's acquisition of NDTV news media and Mukesh Ambani's takeover of India's largest news broadcaster, Network18, as two "oligarchs" stifling critical journalism and independent news broadcasters,[35] a critique also shared by many prominent western media outlets.[36][37][38] Media bias due to lack of diversity has also been criticized.[20]
In Jammu and Kashmir, due to special interest on the region to secure border threats and terrorism threats, special laws concerning the region provide more authority and control over news and reporting from the region. A place termed as “world’s most repressive spots for the press” by journalism watchdog organization International Press Institute (IPI),[39] the local Police authority, often interrogate journalists while some are charged and arrested over national security reportage and nominally defamatory news stories involving government.[40] Under Public Safety Act, authorities are allowed to detain people without evidense and judicial review which has been used, according to Amnesty International, against journalists in retaliation for their investigative work.[41] India also shuts down internet in the region frequently, making it the world's biggest offender for the fourth consecutive time in 2021, according to AccessNow.[42] Indian media has been criticized for carrying media war during military conflicts, and expressing one-sided identification with vigorous support for their interests.[43][44] The government also enforces content blocking and censorship, using Section 69A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000.[45]
Arrest and persecution of journalists and individuals without proper basis has emboldened Hindutva-based right wing organizations and individuals to threaten and harass journalists as well. Reporters Without Borders stated that followers of Hindutva are attempting to censor claimed "anti-national" thoughts. Coordinated hate campaigns by Hindutva followers against journalists critical of Hindutva sometimes call for those journalists to be murdered. Journalists critical of the government often suffer from criminal prosecutions, with Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code often being cited by prosecutors.[46]
Attacks on journalists
Several journalists such as Sagarika Ghose, Ravish Kumar have said that they were subjected to harassment, intimidation including death and rape threats when they were skeptical of the Bharatiya Janata Party government. Bobby Ghosh, the editor of the Hindustan Times resigned in September 2018 shortly after the Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly met Shobhana Bhartia, the owner of the newspaper.[47] The incident occurred after Ghosh opened a portal called the Hate Tracker on the newspaper, a database for tracking violent crimes motivated by race, religion and sexual orientation. The database was later taken down.[48][49]
A report stated that between 2014 and 2019, 40 journalists were killed and at least 198 severe attacks on journalists were reported, of which, 36 occurred in 2019 alone.[50] At least three journalists were killed in 2017 in connection with their jobs. Reporters Without Borders stated Gauri Lankesh a proponent of secularism and a critic of right-wing forces was shot dead outside her house. A member of a Hindu nationalist group was arrested for killing Lankesh.[49][51]
On January 2025, freelance journalist Mukesh Chandrakar was found murdered in Bijapur district, Chhattisgarh, after reporting on alleged corruption in a local road construction project. His body was discovered in a septic tank at the residence of a private contractor whom he had investigated. Authorities arrested multiple individuals, including some of Chandrakar's relatives, in connection with the crime.[52] The incident drew condemnation from journalist associations and press freedom organizations, highlighting the increasing risks faced by investigative journalists in India, particularly those reporting on corruption and misconduct in remote regions. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) urged the Indian government to ensure a thorough investigation and stronger protections for journalists working in high-risk environments.[53]
Cult of personality
The media have consistently upheld the personality cult of the leaders since the country's formation. It reported on the activities of the leader, regularly reporting on their political campaigns, frequently including "advertisements" to ruling parties through radio, television and Newspaper display ads. Previously, media would refer to 2014 Indian general election campaign of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a major political party as the "Abki Baar, Modi Sarkar" (this time Modi government). The political slogan was heavily covered by news media in the country.[54][55][56] Media reports in India that support the ruling party are criticized as being often one-sided and exaggerated, playing little or no role in gathering true information and providing propaganda on their platforms. The independent newspapers running in the country covered 2019 general election with a focus on Narendra Modi, inadvertently giving him more coverage.[57] While campaigning in his constituency of Varanasi during the 2024 general election, Modi tried to divinise himself in a live TV interview given to News18 by stating that he had been directly sent by God in a quote unquote 'non-biological' body to serve the country.[58]
The CMS Media Lab, a nonpartisanism subsidiary of the research organisation CMS stated in its report that Modi, the current prime minister,[a] received 33.21% of the primetime news coverage during his last election campaign while the competitors' political parties such as Aam Aadmi Party led by Arvind Kejriwal received 10.31% media coverage and the Indian National Congress candidate Rahul Gandhi received 4.33% prime-time news telecast coverage.[59]
The INDIA alliance accused the boycotted journalists of spreading hatred and misinformation, and of being mouthpieces of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The alliance has also alleged that the journalists and channels have used their platforms to attack the opposition and its leaders.[62]
The 14 journalists boycotted by the INDIA Alliance have all denied the allegations against them. They have said that they are committed to fair and unbiased journalism, and that they will not be silenced by the boycott.[63]
Arnab Goswami said that the boycott was a "badge of honor" and that he would continue to speak truth to power.[64][63]
Navika Kumar said that the boycott was an "attempt to muzzle the voice of the people" and that she would not be intimidated.[65]
Sudhir Chaudhary said that the boycott was a "desperate attempt by the opposition to hide their failures" and that he would continue to expose their lies.[63]
Other boycotted journalists have also issued statements condemning the boycott and defending their journalistic integrity.[61]
Criticism of boycott
The boycott has been met with criticism from some quarters, who argue that it is an attack on freedom of the press. However, the INDIA alliance has defended its decision, arguing that it is necessary to protect democracy from the harmful effects of biased and hateful media coverage.[66][67][68]
The News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), which represents news broadcasters in India, said that the boycott was a "gag on the press" and a "throwback to the Emergency era."[69][70]
The committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international press freedom watchdog, said that the boycott was a "dangerous precedent" and a "threat to freedom of the press."
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, an organization that promotes and defends freedom of the press, said that the boycott was a "dangerous and undemocratic act" and called on the INDIA Alliance to immediately lift it.
Amnesty International, a human rights organization, said that the boycott was a "direct attack on freedom of expression" and called on the INDIA Alliance to "immediately lift the ban and allow all journalists to carry out their work without fear of reprisal."
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has criticized the INDIA Alliance's boycott of 14 journalists. The BJP has accused the alliance of trying to silence the media and of being intolerant of dissent.[71]
JP Nadda, the BJP president, said that the boycott was a "dangerous precedent" and a "sign of the opposition's intolerance."[72]
Anil Baluni, the BJP's national media head, said that the boycott was "undemocratic" and "an attack on freedom of the press."[73]
Gaurav Bhatia, the BJP's deputy national spokesperson, said that the boycott was "hypocritical" and that the Congress party had a history of bullying the media.[74]
These organizations have argued that the boycott is a dangerous attack on freedom of the press and that it sets a dangerous precedent for other political parties to silence their critics.[75]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
