THE TRIAD OF INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY: ASSESSING PRESS FREEDOM AND THE NECESSITY OF A JOURNALIST’S PROTECTION ACT IN INDIA

Abstract

The Constitution establishes India as a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic,” yet the nation continues to rank 151st on the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index. While the Supreme Court has recognized press freedom as implicit in Article 19(1)(a), journalists in India encounter persistent physical attacks, digital surveillance, and judicial intimidation through laws including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).[1]

This article analyzes both historical and contemporary factors that have diminished press freedom in India. It examines how state-sponsored censorship operated during the colonial period and the 1975 Emergency, and assesses present-day dangers from state actors, non-state actors, local mafias, and digital troll armies.[2]

Drawing on data from media watchdog organizations including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and RSF, the article examines patterns of journalist killings and criminalization from 1992 to 2025. It conducts a comparative legal analysis of India’s framework against the Nordic “gold standard” systems of Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands.[3]

Countries maintaining high press freedom standards provide complete protection of sources, dedicated safety protocols, and do not treat defamation as a criminal offense. The absence of a statutory “Shield Law” in India leaves journalists vulnerable to search, seizure of materials, and compelled disclosure during investigations.[4]

I. Introduction

“151 out of 180.” These numbers reflect the state of India’s democracy. The Reporters Without Borders (RSF) 2025 World Press Freedom Index places India in the “Serious” category — behind several South Asian neighbours. India’s Constitution declares it a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic,” yet the reality for its press is that the fourth pillar of democracy stands under siege, trapped between systemic harassment by state actors and physical threats from non-state entities.[1]

The Supreme Court has affirmed that freedom of the press is indispensable to democracy. Despite this, journalists face physical attacks and legal harassment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), with no statutory “Shield Law” to protect them. This article explores why India — the world’s largest democracy — struggles to protect its journalists, compares the Indian framework with countries like Norway and Sweden, and argues why a comprehensive Journalists’ Protection Act is essential.[2]

II. Historical Stages of Press Suppression

1. The Colonial Origins (Before 1947)
The suppression of journalists in India predates independence. The British colonial administration systematically weaponized law against the press.[5]

The Vernacular Press Act (1878): This legislation empowered the British to seize printing presses of publications deemed seditious — a direct assault on Indian-language journalism.
Sedition Law (Section 124A IPC): Enacted in 1870 and weaponized against figures like Bal Gangadhar Tilak for his writings in Kesari, it established the template of using law as an instrument against journalism.
The Lesson: This era marked the beginning of a pattern in which the State deployed legislation to silence inconvenient voices — a pattern that has never entirely disappeared.

2. The Turning Point: The Emergency (1975–1977)
The Emergency period represented the most systematic, state-sponsored assault on press freedom in independent India.[5]

Censorship: Over 250 journalists were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
Physical Crackdown: Printing presses were shut down and electricity supply to newspaper offices was severed.
The “Iron Curtain”: This period exposed a fundamental constitutional gap — even India’s Constitution did not explicitly guarantee “freedom of the press,” leaving it solely as a judicial interpretation of Article 19(1)(a).

3. The Modern Era: The Age of Non-State Actors (1990s–Present)
Post-liberalization, the nature of violence against journalists transformed significantly.[3]

Local Corruption (1990s): Liberalization brought increased reporting on land scams, mining irregularities, and local corruption, which invited violence from criminal networks and local mafias against journalists.
The “Impunity” Age (2010–Present): The murders of Gauri Lankesh in 2017 and Shujaat Bukhari in 2018 defined an era in which journalists were killed for their ideology or for exposing high-level corruption.[6]
Violence in the Digital Age (2020s): Harassment has migrated online, with “troll armies” and “doxxing” campaigns preceding or accompanying real-world threats, arbitrary detention under UAPA, or prosecution under BNS.

III. The Constitutional Framework

The ‘Implied’ Right
Unlike the United States, India has no explicit “First Amendment” equivalent for the press. The Supreme Court has held, through constitutional interpretation, that if a citizen holds the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), a journalist necessarily holds the right to publish. In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,[7] the Court struck down government-imposed restrictions on newspaper pricing and page allocation, affirming that press freedom is an extension of citizens’ speech rights. However, because the Constitution does not explicitly mention “the Press,” journalists are constitutionally at par with ordinary citizens — which makes it structurally difficult to provide the press with special or elevated legal protections.

The ‘Restrictions’ — The Constitutional Trap
Article 19(2) enumerates eight grounds on which the State may impose reasonable restrictions on free speech. These include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, public order, decency, and contempt of court. In practice, terms such as “security of the State” and “public order” are susceptible to expansive interpretation — creating space for the legal harassment of journalists reporting on sensitive matters.[8] When a journalist is arrested under “incitement to an offence” merely for reporting on a crime, such restriction can no longer credibly be called “reasonable” — it constitutes legal violence against the press.

The ‘Chilling Effect’ and Modern Laws
A chilling effect arises when journalists self-censor out of fear of prosecution after witnessing colleagues arrested. Two laws are particularly responsible for this effect in contemporary India:[8]

BNS Section 152: Although the colonial-era Section 124A IPC (sedition) was formally repealed, Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — which criminalizes “acts endangering sovereignty or unity” — retains similarly broad and ambiguous language susceptible to misuse against journalists.
UAPA — The ‘Process is the Punishment’: Under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, bail is nearly impossible to obtain. A journalist can remain imprisoned for two to five years before a court even considers their case — making arrest itself the instrument of silencing.

IV. Data: The Ground Reality (1992–2025)

In the absence of an official consolidated registry of journalists in India, media rights organizations and research institutions document killings, assaults, and legal intimidation. Drawing from CPJ and RSF databases, the following patterns emerge.[3]

1. Journalists Killed (1992–2025)
Over 90 journalists have been murdered in India since 1992 in killings directly linked to their professional work.[3] Recent high-profile cases include:

Gauri Lankesh (2017): Shot dead outside her home in Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Shujaat Bukhari (2018): Editor of Rising Kashmir, killed in Srinagar.[6]
Mukesh Chandrakar (2025): An independent journalist in Chhattisgarh found dead after exposing corruption in a road construction project.
Budhinath Jha and Avinash Jha (2021): Found dead in Bihar after reporting on fake clinics.
Sulabh Srivastava (2021): An ABP News reporter in Uttar Pradesh, killed after exposing the liquor mafia.

2. Legal Harassment and Criminalization (2012–2022)
A report by Columbia Law School, TrialWatch, and National Law University Delhi documented over 400 criminal cases filed against journalists in India between 2012 and 2022.[9] Of these, 147 cases related to reporting against public officials. Cases were most heavily concentrated in Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.

3. Digital Surveillance and Harassment
Forensic analysis conducted under the Pegasus Project revealed that at least 37 mobile phones — of which at least 10 belonged to Indian journalists — were targeted by Pegasus spyware.[10] Women journalists face a disproportionate burden of online harassment; coordinated “auction” applications like Bulli Bai targeted over 20 women journalists. Social media platforms have also arbitrarily blocked hundreds of journalist and media organization accounts.

4. Regional Pressure: Jammu & Kashmir
Since the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019, journalists in the region face compounded pressures — including internet shutdowns, travel restrictions, and prosecution under UAPA — that make independent reporting structurally precarious.

V. Comparative Analysis: The Nordic Model vs. India

1. The Principle of Absolute Source Protection
In Norway and Sweden, protecting journalistic sources is a near-absolute legal obligation, not a discretionary practice.[11] Journalists cannot ordinarily be compelled to reveal sources except in extreme, judicially scrutinized circumstances. If a journalist voluntarily discloses a source to law enforcement, they may face civil liability to the source. In India, by contrast, police possess wide powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure — and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) to search and seize journalists’ digital devices, with no equivalent source-protection shield.

2. Specialized Safety Protocols
The Netherlands operates a system called PersVeilig (Press Safe) — a formal agreement between the Journalists’ Union, the Police, and the Public Prosecutor.[11] When a journalist reports a threat, the police are obligated to prioritize the case and provide immediate protection, including for online threats. In India, no equivalent protocol exists. Journalists are frequently viewed as adversaries by police — particularly those reporting on custodial torture or police corruption.

Norway (Consistently Ranked #1): Norway sets the global gold standard for press freedom. Key features include zero government interference in editorial content, a strong “safety culture” for journalists, and state subsidies that ensure economic viability even for small media outlets — preserving diversity of voices.[11]

Estonia (Among Top-Ranked Globally): Estonia’s rise as a press freedom success story reflects its embrace of digital governance and transparency. As “e-Estonia,” the government makes public information readily accessible. Strong cross-party consensus on media independence, combined with robust whistleblower protections, makes it a safe environment for investigative journalism.[11]

The Netherlands: The Netherlands has significantly strengthened journalist protection against modern threats. The PersVeilig model, rapid police response protocols for both physical and online threats, and a diverse, independent media ecosystem — including outlets serving diaspora communities — have contributed to consistently high press freedom rankings.[11]

Why Nordic and Northern European Countries Lead
Several structural legal features distinguish these jurisdictions:[11]

— Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution explicitly protects press freedom and public debate.
— Source protection is absolute: no court may compel a journalist to disclose a source, which encourages whistleblowers and enables anti-corruption journalism.
— Strong Freedom of Information laws allow journalists to obtain government documents within days of requesting them.
— Defamation and insult of public officials are civil, not criminal, offenses — eliminating the threat of imprisonment for critical journalism.
— Media regulatory bodies are genuinely independent of government, and public trust in media is high.

VI. Conclusion

The evidence presented in this article makes clear that Article 19(1)(a), as currently interpreted and applied, is insufficient to protect journalists in India from the full spectrum of threats they face. The transition from the Indian Penal Code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita did not cure the structural vulnerabilities in the legal framework. India’s 151st ranking on the World Press Freedom Index is a direct consequence of the high impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of crimes against media personnel.[1]

To meaningfully address this crisis, this article proposes the enactment of a comprehensive Journalists’ Protection Act modelled on the Nordic framework, incorporating the following elements:[2]

Statutory Shield Law: Legislatively protect journalists from being compelled to disclose sources under the BNSS or any analogous provision.
Special Protection Status: Classify attacks on journalists as a non-bailable offence, subject to fast-track trial — analogous to offences against public servants.
Judicial Clearance on Surveillance: Require prior authorization from a High Court Judge before any surveillance of a journalist’s digital devices under the DPDP Act.
National Safety Fund: Establish a state-sponsored fund to provide financial and legal support to freelance journalists, stringers, and reporters most at risk.

“If the media collapses under physical violence, democracy’s other pillars will also collapse. Protecting journalists is not charity — it is self-defence.”

References

[1] Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 2025 World Press Freedom Index: India Country Profile (2025), available at https://rsf.org/en/india.
[2] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed., LexisNexis 2018).
[3] Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Database of Journalists Killed in India (1992–2025), available at https://cpj.org/asia/india/.
[4] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (LexisNexis 2024).
[5] J.K. Varma, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Universal Law Publishing 2024).
[6] Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Gauri Lankesh (Sept. 6, 2017); CPJ, Shujaat Bukhari (June 14, 2018), available at https://cpj.org.
[7] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
[8] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.
[9] Columbia Law School, TrialWatch & National Law University Delhi, Report on Criminalization of Journalism in India (2012–2022) (2023).
[10] Amnesty International & Forbidden Stories, The Pegasus Project: Forensic Analysis of Surveillance in India (2021).
[11] Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 2025 World Press Freedom Index: Norway, Estonia, Netherlands Country Profiles (2025), available at https://rsf.org.