Can a democracy exist without freedom of Press? How will people like you and me be informed about the current affairs across the world and India? What about Sedition? Is sedition a tool for the authorities to curtail Freedom of Press? Can Individual rights be curtailed for promoting National security? Here, we seek to understand what Free Press signifies. We will also look at the Supreme Court cases on Freedom of Press to have a clear picture.
Introduction with Freedom of Press
The freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. This freedom is not explicitly mentioned as a separate right under the Constitution of India. However, it is derived from the broader ambit of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). While Article 19(1)(a) does not explicitly mention the press, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that freedom of the press is implicit within this article. The freedom of Press, however, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), so is the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
The Press acts as the voice of the people, a watchdog of the government, and a medium to hold those in power accountable. Through landmark judgments and notable instances, the Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and preserving this freedom while maintaining a balance with the restrictions imposed by law.
Key Supreme Court Judgments on Freedom of Press
Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
It is one of the first cases where the Supreme Court examined the scope of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution in context with the Freedom of Press.
In this case, Ramesh Thoppar who was the editor of a magazine, challenged the order passed by the Madras Government which banned the circulation of his magazine. The Government imposed this ban under Section 9 (1-A) of Madras Maintenance Order of Public Order Act, 1949, claiming that the magazine contained material prejudicial to the Public Order.
The Supreme Court held Section 9(1-A) of the Act as ultra vires to the Constitution while stating the restriction imposed under Sec 19(2) as unreasonable. While striking down the law, the Supreme Court held that Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right and it includes freedom of propagating ideas too.
Brij Bushan v State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
In this case, the Delhi Government imposed restrictions on the newspapers, required to submit the content related to Communal matters for prior approval. The government justified this action under Public Order concerns, arguing that communal writings could incite violence.
The Supreme Court held that Public order is not included in Article 19(2) of Constitution, and held pre-censorship as unconstitutional. The Apex Court held this pre-censorship as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and amounted to a restriction on Freedom the of Press, which is a part of broader right of Freedom of Speech and Expression.
This case led to the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) which expanded the scope of Article 19(2) to include Public Order as a ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on Freedom of speech and expression.
Bennett Coleman V Union Of India, AIR 1972 SC 106
In this case, Bennet Coleman & Co.Ltd. (The Times of India newspaper) challenged the order passed by the government regulating quantity of newsprint available to the newspapers. Government regulated it to ensure fair distribution among big and small newspapers. The restrictions included a limit on page numbers and prohibition on starting new editions or increasing new circulation.
The Supreme Court held that Freedom of Speech and Expression also includes Freedom of Press. Here, curtailing the circulation of Newspapers directly violated Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution. The Court held that any restrictions which are imposed must be proportionate to the purpose it seeks to achieve and here the restriction imposed was held unreasonable.
The Bennet Coleman case reaffirmed the importance of a free press in a democracy and set limits on the government’s ability to regulate the Press under the guise of public interest. It emphasized the need to strike a balance between public welfare and individual rights.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) v. Union of India (1984)
This case challenged the imposition of heavy import duties on newsprint which was argued to curb the Press freedom by financially burdening Newspapers.
The Supreme Court held that imposing such duties is an infringement of Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Apex Court held that Freedom of Press includes the economic aspect necessary to sustain press operations.
Mohan Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021)
This case popularly known as Pegasus case raised concerns about the government’s alleged misuse of Pegasus spyware for surveillance on Journalists, activists and politicians, which violates Art 19(1) (a) and Art 21 of Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court had set up a committee to investigate the matter, emphasizing that unauthorized surveillance has a chilling effect on the freedom of Press, deterring investigative journalism.
All these judgments reinforced the need to balance national security with individual rights and safeguard democratic values, underscoring that a free press is essential for accountability in governance.
Challenges to Freedom of Press in India
Despite constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court judgments on Freedom of Press, the press’ freedom in India time and again faces several challenges:
1. Censorship and Intimidation: In instances such as the Emergency (1975-77), the government imposed stringent censorship on the press. Even today, journalists face harassment, intimidation, and threats.
2. Defamation and Sedition Laws: Criminal defamation and sedition laws are often misused to silence dissent. The conviction of journalists under these provisions raises concerns about the misuse of laws to curb press freedom. While sedition is per se no longer an offence, there are other provisions which somehow cover the aspect leaving behind the scope for curtailing freedom of Press.
3. Paid News and Media Bias: The rise of paid news and corporate influence over media houses has allegedly compromised the independence of Press.
4. Digital Media and Fake News: With the proliferation of digital platforms, regulating content and tackling fake news have become major concerns.
Balancing Freedom and Responsibility
While the freedom of the press is essential, it must be exercised with responsibility. Sensationalism, dissemination of fake news, and invasion of privacy are significant concerns. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that press freedom must align with ethical journalism and public interest.
Recent Developments and Global Standing
India’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index 2024 was 159 out of 180 countries, indicating significant challenges. Concerns include increasing violence against journalists, political pressures, and a lack of transparency.
Efforts to regulate digital media through guidelines like the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 , have sparked debates over whether they enhance accountability or curb free speech.
Conclusion
Freedom of the press is the lifeblood of a democracy, ensuring transparency, accountability, and informed citizenry. The Supreme Court cases on Press Freedom consistently reflect the idea of Free Press, but challenges persist in the form of censorship, defamation laws, and media corporatization. To ensure a robust democracy, it is imperative to safeguard press freedom while promoting ethical journalism.
India must strike a balance between maintaining national security and public order without stifling the voice of the Press. Only then can the Press continue to significantly play its role as the fourth pillar of democracy.
The landmark cases on Freedom of Press have been compiled and summarised by Mr. Ramachandra Achanta, who is amazingly polishing his research and writing skills while interning at Lawgical Shots.
