In the first part, we looked into how press freedom is fundamental to democracy, serving as a voice against oppression and a catalyst for social change. In India, the press has been instrumental since the colonial era, with publications like Amrita Bazaar Patrika and Bombay Gazette mobilizing nationalist movements during the freedom struggle. Over decades, the media landscape has evolved from traditional print to digital platforms, reflecting societal shifts. Despite its critical role, India’s press freedom faces significant challenges, as evidenced by its low ranking in the World Press Freedom Index. This underscores the persistent tension between regulatory frameworks, state influence, and the democratic ideal of an independent press.
HISTORY & COLONIAL RULE:
India’s contemporary media landscape is deeply rooted in its colonial past. The British Raj meticulously constructed a centralized media system designed to serve imperial interests. By imposing strict licensing requirements, the state exerted control over the establishment and operation of newspapers and periodicals. Censorship was a potent tool, with authorities scrutinizing content for any material deemed detrimental to colonial authority. However, the seeds of resistance were sown. A nascent Indian press emerged, albeit under immense pressure. Publications like the Kesari and Amrita Bazar Patrika began to challenge colonial
hegemony, fostering nationalist sentiments and mobilizing public opinion against British rule. These newspapers played a crucial role in disseminating information about the atrocities of colonial rule, inspiring anti-colonial movements, and shaping the discourse around independence. Post-independence, India embraced democratic principles, but the legacy of centralized control persisted. The state continued to wield significant influence over the media through various mechanisms. Government ownership of media outlets, licensing restrictions, and the distribution of government advertising were employed to shape media
narratives and maintain a degree of control. While these tactics were less overt than those of the colonial era, they nonetheless contributed to a media landscape that was often deferential to state authority.
This historical trajectory has had a profound impact on the contemporary Indian media. The legacy of control has shaped the relationship between the state and the media, with periodic tensions arising over issues of press freedom and government interference. The struggle for a truly independent and pluralistic media continues, with the media landscape grappling with the challenges of balancing commercial interests, government influence, and the publics right to information.
THE BLACK ERA OF EMERGENCY:
The period of emergency marked a Nadir in the history of press freedom. By imposing draconian censorship measures the government transformed media into a state mouthpiece. The arrest of journalist, coercion of media houses, not only curtailed the free-flow of information rather also instilled a climate of fear, stifling criticism and dissent. This period serves as poignant reminder of the precarious balance between state power and media independence highlighting the potential consequence when the former is unchecked and latter is compromised.
CONTEMPORARY TRENDS:
Similar incidents can be observed in India as well from the time of emergency which was the gloomiest days of press freedom. The infamous arrest of Alt news journalists Mohmmad Zubair under the newly implemented IT rules to remove content regarding a historical document. An FIR against The Wire by Delhi Police for being critical to the governmental schemes showcases how government uses the bodies to regulate the press freedom through online media. In a similar fashion the raids by government agencies on the offices of news website NewsClick, by charging them guilty of “propagating Chinese propaganda” through secret inputs during Covid for their rampant reporting of Covid cases. The infamous 2021 ED crackdown of office of NewsClick and houses of journalists associated with it. On one single day in 2021 crackdown on two newspapers Dainik Bhaskar and Bharat Samachar by the tax department showcases attempts by the government to intimidate news channel who criticise the government.
The NewsClick case illustrates how broad and ambiguous government regulations can suppress fundamental rights, especially the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 19(1)(a). The Digital Personal Data Protection Act and the IT rules invoked in this case allowed the government to access sensitive data under the guise of national security concerns. However, the vagueness of terms like “propagating foreign propaganda” or “anti-state activities” creates a dangerous precedent where legitimate journalistic practices can be labelled as subversive or harmful to the nation. By categorizing
dissent or critical reporting as “national security threats,” the state curtails the media’s role as an independent entity capable of questioning the establishment. Journalists and editors may increasingly find themselves subject to state scrutiny or raids, such as those carried out on NewsClick, simply for reporting on issues that challenge the dominant narrative. In this way, these laws infringe upon both the media’s right to report freely and the publics right to receive truthful information. It also sets a trend for using the legal system as a tool for silencing opposition, infringing on rights guaranteed by the constitution under the pretext of security. The broader societal impact of such legal actions is profound. The press plays a critical role in informing citizens, holding the powerful accountable, and ensuring transparency in governance. When the government curtails press freedom, society is deprived of the information needed to make informed decisions.
This stifling of press freedom leads to a chilling effect, where media outlets, out of fear of reprisals, may self-censor their content. Important public interest issues like government mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, corruption, or state inefficiency may go unreported. Citizens, unaware of the real situation, lose the ability to question or challenge governance, weakening democracy itself. This fosters a climate of misinformation, where only state- approved narratives circulate, limiting the scope of public discourse and debate. In the long term, such measures erode trust between the public and the media. When critical reporting is viewed as a threat, and voices of dissent are suppressed, society moves toward a less open, more controlled information ecosystem. A weakened press undermines the public’s capacity to act as informed participants in governance, shifting the balance of power disproportionately in favor of the state.
The NewsClick case exposes how the government can misuse its regulatory and legal powers to suppress critical voices. Instead of using these laws to genuinely address issues of national security or data protection, they appear to have been selectively employed to target a media organization that was critical of government policies, particularly during the pandemic. This selective enforcement of laws illustrates how the state can weaponize regulations for political gain. The invocation of national security concerns to justify raids and data access is an example of regulatory overreach. It suggests that the government is more concerned with controlling the narrative than with protecting public safety. The lack of transparency surrounding these raids, and the broad interpretation of terms like ‘anti-state activities,’ opens the door for future misuse of similar laws against other independent media outlets, activists, and opposition groups.
The Press Registration of Periodicals Act also becomes a tool for the government to determine what constitutes legitimate journalism and what falls under the category of subversive activities. Without clear, well-defined parameters, authorities can label critical reporting as detrimental to the state, suppressing it under the guise of law enforcement. This use of broad and undefined terms essentially grants the government unchecked authority, allowing it to misuse its powers to control the press and suppress dissent without judicial oversight or public accountability.
In conclusion, the NewsClick case serves as a stark reminder of how new regulations, under the pretext of national security, can be misused to suppress rights, manipulate public discourse, and maintain power. It reflects an erosion of democratic values, where the balance between national security and press freedom is skewed heavily in favor of the state at the cost of individual liberties and societal transparency. Current incidents of selective investigations, arrests and raids against opposition leaders, journalists critical of government steps raise the concern of specifying the “specified authority” by the government as it creates a new room to cripple the the press freedom. The arrest of Alt News founder who was critical of the central government acts as a testament to the fact of overreach of governmental powers.
IMPOSITION THROUGH LEGISLATIVE TOOLS:
The government’s deployment of legal tools such as sedition laws, defamation suits and tax raids has created a chilling effect on independent journalism. These tactics, often wielded against critical voices, suggest a strategic effort to shape media narratives. Such objectives re achieved by legislative tools such as the freshly implemented data protection law and IT act. The newly made IT Act, represents step to regulate false information and online content however, has raised several concerns regarding potential censorship and curtailment of free speech. The rules define “harmful content” in a broad and ambiguous manner, leaving
significant to misuse it by government to stifle dissent as the government did to raid “NewsClick”. The requirement for significant social media intermediaries to identify the first originator of information within India (traceability) can potentially undermine encryption and privacy. It could also deter whistle blowers from sharing information freely, fearing identification and potential repercussions. The rules impose stringent due diligence obligations on intermediaries, requiring them to remove content upon receiving notice from the government or law enforcement agencies. This could lead to the hasty removal of content without simply against the popular narrative adequate scrutiny, infringing upon the rights of users and platforms.
Further the Digital Data Protection Act, has raised significant concerns about its potential to curtail freedom of speech and press. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act presents a complex interplay of privacy rights and press freedom. While ostensibly safeguarding individual data, the law’s broad provisions for government access to personal information, including compelling disclosure of journalistic sources, pose a significant threat to investigative journalism. Additionally, data localization requirements and expansive exceptions for government surveillance can hinder journalists ability to access and analyze
critical data. These factors, coupled with the potential for content blocking, create a chilling effect on the media’s watchdog role, undermining its capacity to scrutinize power and inform the public.
CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD
In conclusion, while the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act 2023 marks a significant departure from the colonial-era Press and Registration of Books Act 1867, its implications for press freedom in India remain contentious. The act introduces much-needed digital reforms to streamline the registration process, aiming to address the cumbersome procedures that plagued the previous legislation. However, the concentration of power in the Press Registrar General, appointed by the central government, raises concerns about the potential misuse of power and the chilling effect on free speech. Provisions disqualifying individuals convicted
under broad terms like “security of the state” or “terrorist act” risk being wielded to stifle legitimate dissent and criticism. Moreover, the broad powers granted to unspecified authorities for inspections and information gathering, as well as the potential for further delegation without clear oversight, amplify worries about intrusive state control over the media. Such provisions could undermine journalistic independence and hinder the medias role as a watchdog in a democratic society.
Judicial Oversight through Specialized Media Tribunals
Establish specialized Media Tribunals with judicial powers to handle all cases related to media licensing, revocation, and press freedom disputes. These tribunals would have legal expertise in media law and constitutional rights, ensuring that decisions are made with due consideration of press freedom and public interest.
Mandatory Consultation with a Multi-Stakeholder Committee
Make it a legal requirement for the government to consult a multi-stakeholder committee comprising media organizations, civil society, legal scholars, press freedom advocates, and government officials before making significant amendments to the Act or issuing new guidelines.
Introduction of Proportional Sanctions Framework
Implement a graded sanction system that ensures proportionality in penalties. Instead of immediate license revocation for alleged violations, the framework could include warnings, fines, and temporary suspensions with clear steps for correction before severe actions like permanent license revocation.
Clear Definitions of ‘Anti-State’ and ‘Security Concerns
Mandate a detailed, legally binding definition of terms such as “anti-state activities,” “terrorism,” and “threats to national security,” with precise examples of what constitutes a violation. Include a requirement for independent judicial verification before any publication can be labelled as engaging in such activities.
Annual Press Freedom Review and Reporting
Introduce an annual review process wherein an independent media watchdog, in collaboration with civil society and press organizations, reviews the functioning of the Press Registrar General and publishes an annual report on press freedom violations, complaints, and how they were resolved.
Digital Media Exemption and Press Council Expansion
Exempt purely digital platforms from the traditional licensing requirements imposed by the Act. At the same time, expand the powers of the existing Press Council of India to include oversight of digital media, ensuring uniformity in regulation while protecting the digital press from government overreach.
Right to Appeal and Fair Hearing
Codify a clear right to appeal any decision made by the Press Registrar General to an independent appellate body. Ensure that all publications are entitled to a fair hearing, with legal representation, before any punitive action such as license revocation or content takedown is executed.
Moving forward, it is imperative for India to uphold the principles of press freedom and freedom of expression enshrined in its Constitution. Amendments to the act should prioritize transparency, accountability, and safeguards against misuse of regulatory powers. Mechanisms must be established to ensure that the Press Registrar Generals office operates independently of political influence, with clear guidelines on the exercise of its authority. Furthermore, the act should incorporate provisions for robust judicial oversight and avenues for redressal to protect publishers and journalists from arbitrary decisions. Civil society engagement and consultation with stakeholders, including media organizations and legal experts, are essential to crafting legislation that balances regulatory needs with fundamental rights. In the digital age, where the landscape of media is rapidly evolving, any regulatory framework must be adaptive and responsive to emerging challenges while safeguarding the core principles of press freedom. India’s aspiration to lead by example in the global south should be underpinned by a commitment to fostering a vibrant and free press that plays a crucial role in upholding democracy and promoting societal progress.
