The Author, Vidisha Singh, is a 1st-year BBA.LLB student at New Law College, Bhartiya Vidyapeeth University, Maharashtra. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.
In New York Times v. Sullivan [376 US 254], it was said that the prime purpose of the free press guarantee is regarded as creating a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches – executive, legislature and the judiciary. The view essentially protected by the First Amendment of the US constitution and developed by the US Supreme Court says that the freedom of press includes more than serving as a “neutral conduit of information between the people and their elected leaders or as a neutral form of debate.”[ New York Times Company v. United States, 1971]
Existence of the Free Press in any country enables the citizens by being benefactors of a free and consistent flow of news and information, keeping them up to date and aware of proper facts of events and the truth, and by allowing the people to speak their own truth to power, voice their grievances and consciously demand justice and acknowledgement at the national/international level. It is a bold reflection of our society made in virtue of the people, by the people supported by principles of the unindoctrinated truth and an important milestone for free and pervasive education in any society.
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution secures all its citizens the liberty of thought and expression, and this as well extends to the necessity belying the freedom of our journalism institutions. In India there are no specific provisions ensuring the freedom of press, it is only an extension of the right flowing from the freedom of speech as protected under Article 19 (1)(a). Thus, the freedom of press stands on an equal footing, if not more to the privilege of expression of any citizen.
However, in these turbulent times where political powers are pursued and exercised through instruments of nationalism and surging shifts towards theocracies in republics, the press has faced tightening restrictions on its autonomy and purpose, which is to throw light on uncomfortable truths as well as holding the government or representatives of the people accountable. The rising threat to the press is certainly reflective of the receding democratic credentials of a state, and points towards a turning point of a democracy reducing itself to an autocracy, as demonstrated by China and Russia especially.
The controlling and regulation of the press hinders the foundation of a government which is accountable to its people, all the while restricting the public’s rule by depriving them of information necessary to hold elections, elect leaders and keep them under constant scrutiny of the public.
As such, the criticism faced by the press from the government or public authorities extend as far as to using underhanded techniques such as filing police cases on grounds of colonial era or ‘anti terrorism’ laws, subject to both imprisonment and fines, for e.g. the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2019 which widened the powers of the state, allowing them to label anyone as a terrorist if they so believe them to be, another example is the Official Secrets Act, a colonial era law in Myanmar used by the state to detain and fine journalists reporting on the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. In countries where there is no legislation pertaining to serving the interest of journalists and the people, the consequences of free and fair reporting are far worse, including abduction, imprisonment, rape, torture and even murder. These cases are usually seen in countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Columbia etc, wherein populism and incursion of the police and law in journalism territory are rampant.
Causes for such polarization between the media or the free press and the government or public authorities of such states can be chalked up to exposing critical information of the government, exposing corruption, state sanctioned genocide, increasing opposition against fascist dictatorship and rule, unhiding instances of violence inflicted by majoritarian groups against minorities etc. A lot of the times these methods of intimidation are successful, driving several reports and articles underground, unpublished, never to be disclosed in fear of retaliation. This way the truth remains uncovered, stories remain unheard, and allot of us remain in the dark about several important issues.
Territories with long standing geopolitical issues, history of ethnic cleansing or genocide, an unstable monarchy, loss of neutrality, extremist groups in power, or a charged political atmosphere are usually the first to seize control of or abolish the mechanisms of the free press, provided any such reporting or coverage would harm their rule or authority. This is further illustrated in cases like the killing of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul by the Saudi crown prince's government, or Maria Ressa in the Philippines who was arrested for criticism of the current president Robert Duerte and was viciously harassed and intimidated for months, or Gauri Lankesh, an Indian journalist turned activist who was murdered for speaking against the atrocities committed by the prevalent right wing nationalist groups of the state.
Other examples of difficulties faced by journalists in India in recent times include criminal case against Siddharth Varadarjan, Founder of The Wire on grounds of a misquote allegedly made to propagate ‘fake news’ by the Ayodhya Police. Arnab Goswami, Editor and CEO of Republic TV and Republic Bharat faces several FIRs on the grounds of allegedly misleading and threatening coverage of communal violence in the country. That’s not all, he was even attacked while driving home at midnight by two men on a motorcycle who tried blocking his car, hit the car’s windows and threw ink. Ashwani Saini, a journalist based in Himachal Pradesh has been booked under several Sections of the IPC concerning disseminating fake news and the Disaster Management Act for reporting on the plight of migrant labourers not getting their rations. Several renowned journalists like Sudhir Chaudhary, Arnab Goswami and ground-level reporters such Ashwani Saini who provide direct coverage, are subjected to mounting pressure and mental stress by certain sections of the society with vested interests.
These times can be defined as the most difficult to be a journalist if we see the risk one has to take to make the public aware of the truth, a great expense is taken by these front line soldiers who despite all these ordeals persevere against the odds and serve the public with their coverage as their precedence. This proves to be an especially dire time for the rest of us, the ones who consume and communicate knowledge by the efforts of the reporters, when the basic principles of journalism and democracy which include – independence, fairness and justice, are being threatened. We must speak not only for ourselves, but for our reporters and spread awareness of the incredible importance of the nature of their work, and the service they do us not only as mere citizens, but as neighbours, voters, students and activists.
Picture Source :
