A Step Forward for Journalists’ Safety and Free Speech?

The tragic murder of Chhattisgarh-based freelance journalist Mukesh Chandrakar on January 1, 2025, has reignited a crucial debate about the safety and protection of journalists, especially those reporting from conflict zones. Chandrakar, who ran the popular YouTube channel Bastar Junction, was found dead just days after reporting on corruption in local road construction. His brutal killing has sparked calls for stronger laws to protect journalists and ensure their safety, particularly in regions where they are at risk due to their investigative work.

While calls for more stringent measures are growing louder, a significant development emerged from the Supreme Court of India. In October 2024, the apex court delivered a landmark judgment that is particularly important for the protection of journalists’ rights. The Court ruled that journalists have the absolute right to express their opinions and critique the government, especially when they are publishing facts or analyses critical of government policies.

The Supreme Court’s interim protection order on October 4, 2024 granting favour to Uttar Pradesh based journalist Abhishek Upadhyay was a response to the increasing misuse of criminal laws against journalists for their reporting, especially when their work is critical of the government. The Court specifically observed that “In democratic nations, freedom to express one’s views are respected” and emphasized that the right of journalists to report, criticize, and expose is essential for democracy. It also affirmed that no coercive action should be taken against a journalist solely based on their writings. The ruling was made in the case of Abhishek Upadhyay Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

1. Reinforcing Constitutional Protection: The Court reaffirmed that journalists’ freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This ensures that the press remains free to publish information without undue interference from the state or any powerful institution.
2. Defending the Role of Journalists as Watchdogs: The ruling recognizes the vital role of the press in holding the government accountable. By acknowledging that journalists have the right to criticize government policies, the Court ensures that their role as watchdogs of democracy is legally protected. In doing so, it strengthens the foundation of democracy by promoting transparency and exposing corruption.
3. Setting a Precedent for Protection: The ruling also sets an important legal precedent that helps shield journalists from retaliatory actions, such as frivolous lawsuits or police harassment, simply for doing their jobs. By asserting that journalists should not face criminal charges merely for expressing criticism, the judgment helps combat the chilling effect that such actions can have on free speech.
4. Opening the Door for Stricter Protections: While the ruling does not directly create new laws for journalists’ safety, it paves the way for further legal reforms. It highlights the need for a more comprehensive framework that provides specific protections for journalists, particularly in cases where their reporting exposes sensitive issues such as corruption or political misconduct.

In this context, the Supreme Court’s judgment can be seen as a significant step in recognizing an exclusive legal protection for journalists’ freedom of speech. It underlines the urgent need for a legal environment where journalists can work without fear of violence, coercion, or legal harassment. This ruling serves as a reminder of the indispensable role the press plays in ensuring that democracy remains robust and transparent.

But the question arises: Can this judicial pronouncement be considered a breakthrough in providing tailored protections for journalists? While the ruling solidifies the constitutional protections for all citizens, it gives special consideration to the risks faced by journalists in their line of work. This may signal a shift towards a more nuanced approach to journalists’ rights, one that recognizes the unique threats they face, and the need for specific measures to ensure their safety in reporting.

Considering that India is the 7th most dangerous country for the working journalists (as per CPJ 2024 report) and the tragic death of Mukesh Chandrakar underscores the urgency of such measures. As journalists across India demand stronger laws to ensure their protection, it is clear that legal safeguards must evolve to address the unique challenges faced by those who investigate and report on corruption, politics, and other sensitive issues. The Supreme Court’s judgment, therefore, not only protects free speech but also acknowledges the critical role of journalists in safeguarding democracy itself

What Was the Ruling?

In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that significantly impacts press freedom in the country. The Court ruled that journalists have the constitutional right to express their opinions and criticize the government. This ruling comes as a response to increasing efforts to silence dissent through legal intimidation, including the filing of frivolous cases against journalists who report on or criticize government actions.

Specifically, the Court made the following points:

1. Right to Express Opinions and Criticize the Government: The Court reaffirmed that journalists are entitled to express their views and provide analysis, even when it includes criticism of government policies or officials. This guarantees their ability to report freely without fear of retaliation.
2. Protection from Coercive Action: The Court held that journalists should not face any coercive action, such as arrests or harassment, simply for publishing their writings. This is a crucial point, ensuring that journalists are not intimidated or persecuted for their work, especially when they voice dissent.
3. Freedom of Expression Under Article 19(1)(a): The ruling emphasized that the right to free speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This fundamental right guarantees that journalists can operate in a free environment, vital for a functioning democracy.

Why is the Ruling Important?

The ruling was a critical step forward in strengthening press freedom and protecting the role of journalists in India. Here’s why it holds such significance:

1. A Positive Step for Press Freedom: This ruling marks a major victory for journalists who have faced increasing threats, legal cases, and violence. It reaffirms the importance of a free press in a democratic society and sends a strong message against the misuse of power to stifle dissent.
2. Protection for Journalists to Publish Facts, Opinions, and Analysis: By protecting journalists’ right to publish not just facts but also opinions and analyses—even critical ones—the ruling upholds the essential role of the press in providing diverse perspectives and fostering informed public discourse. This protection is especially important in a country like India, where investigative journalism plays a key role in exposing corruption and holding government bodies accountable.
3. Safeguarding the Role of the Press as a Watchdog: The Court’s ruling reinforces the press’s critical function as the “fourth pillar” of democracy, ensuring that journalists can continue scrutinizing government actions, promoting transparency, and acting as a check on power. By protecting journalists from retaliatory legal actions, the Court has taken a significant step toward securing their independence and, by extension, the integrity of democratic processes.
4. Encouraging Accountability and Transparency: By upholding journalists’ rights to criticize the government and report on its actions, the ruling encourages a more transparent system of governance. Journalists have the freedom to expose malpractices, highlight flaws in government policies, and demand greater accountability, contributing to a more open society.

This judgment not only reaffirms the fundamental right of journalists to operate freely but also signals a broader recognition of the need to protect press freedom in the face of growing challenges. As India continues to grapple with issues of press safety, the ruling provides a crucial legal foundation for safeguarding journalists’ rights while supporting their vital role in democracy.

(The writer is New delhi based journalist, lawyer and a trained mediator)