Authored By: Mizba Ahmed
NEF Law College
ABSTRACT
The press is universally recognized as the Fourth Pillar of a democracy. In India journalism occupies a constitutionally protected yet practically contested space within the democratic framework. While Article 19(1)(a)[2] of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, however, the media landscape is increasingly characterized by a duality – pervasive bias among the corporate owned media and political influence; and harsh legal and physical measures targeting independent, unbiased journalism. This have raised questions about the actual condition of press freedom in India. This article critically examines whether journalism in India is structurally biased and whether journalists who attempt to remain independent face adverse legal consequences or any harm such as instances of violence or assassinations. This paper argues that although India possesses a robust doctrinal commitment to press freedom, it is often seen biasness and spread of false information that threatens the democratic accountability.
KEYWORDS
Press Freedom; Media Bias; Article 19(1)(a); Sedition; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Journalist Safety; Chilling Effect; Constitutional Democracy.
INTRODUCTION
A free and independent press is foundation of democratic governance and not merely a professional privilege. It ensures that the citizens remains informed, the executive remains accountable and the weaker sections finds a voice. From the early colonial era of newspapers to modern platforms, the press has shaped political consciousness and exposed systematic failures.
However, in recent years, India’s ranking on the global World Press Freedom Index has seen a concerning decline. The report, put together by Reporters Without Borders (RWB), an international non-profit organisation for democratic governance, raised alarm about economic pressure being a pressing concern for most media outlets worldwide. “The economic indicator in the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index is at its lowest point in history, and the global situation is now considered ‘difficult’,” said the RSF report.[3] In their first World Press Freedom Index published in 2002, India’s rank was 80th, and in the latest report (Reporters Without Borders 2025), the rank dropped to 151 out of 180 countries.
Two important questions of this article:
- Whether the media bias?
- Whether independent journalist face legal prosecution, harassment or violence for exposing governmental failures.
To address these questions, this article examines constitutional protections, judicial precedents, statutory tools and documented instances of targeted violence against journalists.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF PRESS FREEDOM
Article 19(1)(a): Implied Freedom of the Press
The Constitution of India does not expressly mention “freedom of the press.” However, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, to include press freedom.
In Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, the Court held that freedom of speech includes the freedom to circulate ideas, emphasizing that public discussion and criticism are essential in a democracy. Similarly, in Bennett Coleman & Co v Union of India, the Court struck down restrictions on newsprint, stating that indirect limits on circulation violate Article 19(1)(a).
These judgments establish that press freedom is an essential part of the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Restrictions under Article 19(2)
The right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on grounds such as sovereignty, security of the State, public order, defamation, and related concerns.
While constitutionally valid, these restrictions may sometimes be broadly applied, particularly under the ground of “public order,” affecting independent journalism. Thus, the constitutional issue lies not in the existence of restrictions, but in their potential misuse.
CAUSES OF MEDIA BIAS IN INDIA
Corporate Ownership and Government Advertising as Indirect Control
India’s media are primarily funded by advertising revenue, the main source by which the government under Narendra Modi, made billions of dollars of public funds been spent on advertising. Both central and state governments put pressure on the media to censor their contents through this fundings, on which many small media outlets depend on. While, on one hand, the government has tightened its grip on both state and privately owned medias. Media ownership has become controlled in the hands of a few conglomerates that are mostly allied with the government. Gautam Adani, a close ally of Modi with interests in port development, energy and mining, took control of NDTV.[4]
Polarization, Sensationalism and Critique
Media ecosystems reward ideological polarization and sensational debates. Market driven incentives often overshadow investigative journalism, causing biasness. And to rely and maintain access to political support, media houses often soften their critique.
Thus, media bias may emerge not only from political coercion but also from structural economic incentives. Journalist who operates independently through digital platforms or regional outlets becomes easy targets because they lack the institutional financial shields that usually protect traditional media.
CRIMINAL LAW: LEGAL WEAPONIZATION (THE COST OF UNBIASED JOURNALISM)
Independent journalists have faced prosecution under various laws. When economic pressures fail to silence independent voices, the State often resort to the criminal justice system.
Sedition
Under Section 152, Sedition[5] penalises the following: (i) exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, (ii) encouraging feelings of separatist activities, or (iii) endangering the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.[6]
Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr (Rajasthan High Court, 21 December 2024) – The Court held that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita must not be used to suppress legitimate dissent and quashed proceedings where no real threat to national sovereignty was shown. Despite this limitation, sedition charges have periodically been filed against journalists for critical reporting. Even if eventually quashed, the process itself functions as punishment.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
As scrutiny over sedition grew, the State turned to the UAPA. Section 2(1)(o) defines “unlawful activity” in broad terms.[7] More severely, Section 43D(5) practically eliminates the presumption of innocence at the bail stage, ensuring journalist to remain confined for years without trial.
Criminal Defamation
Under Section 365 of the BNS, 2023, it criminalizes making or publishing any imputation intended to harm a person’s reputation through words, signs, or representations.
Which in result, can be used as a strategical proceeding that can deter investigative journalism, frequently used by powerful politicians or corporations.
In Subramanian Swamy v Union of India,[8] the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation as constitutionally valid.
Other issue such as, Digital Speech and the Chilling Effect which means modern
press suppression that is the fear of prosecution deters lawful reporting. Where in Shreya Singhal v Union of India,[9] the Supreme Court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act for vagueness and overbreadth. The Court acknowledged that vague restrictions create a chilling effect on speech.
And also, Violence Against Journalist and Constitutional Breakdown which says legal prosecution creates pressure, physical violence represents the extreme threat to press freedom.
THE CONSEQUENCE: VIOLENCE AND ASSASINATION
The most severe and tragic consequence of unbiased journalism in India is extrajudicial violence. When investigative reporters uncover deep government negligence, resource mafias or political corruption, they often face physical harm or even elimination. The legal system’s failure to protect whistleblowers encourage local syndicates and corrupt officials.
Let see this issue in several landmark judgments where a journalist is caused harm for doing unbiased reporting.
One of the well documented case, in 2015 the murder of Jagendra Singh[10], a freelance journalist in Uttar Pradesh. Singh has been actively reporting on his platform (Shahjahanpur Samachar), exposing allegations of illegal sand mining, land grabs, and sexual assault linked to a then sitting state minister for which he was beaten and burnt by the minister’s goondas.
This incident raised concerns regarding –
- misuse of state power,
- failure of accountability mechanisms and
- vulnerability of regional journalists.
Another recent case, in February 2023, Shashikant Warishe[11], a journalist based in Maharashtra, was brutally murdered for his reporting on a controversial government backed oil refinery project in Ratnagiri district. Warishe had extensively documented the anguish of local farmers, highlighting severe anomalies in land acquisition and exposing the close ties between project promoters and political elites. Just hours after publishing a report in the Mahanagari Times, Warishe was deliberately killed in a head-on collision by an SUV driven by the very land agent he had exposed.
Other such cases are Shujaat Bukhari[12] who was shot dead outside his office in Srinagar on 14 June 2018. Gauri Lankesh[13] who was shot dead outside her Bengaluru home.
These assassinations highlight a catastrophic failure of the State’s duty to protect under Article 21 (Right to life) of the Constitution. When the legal machinery is either too slow to react or actively complicit in the violence, the ultimate censorship is achieved through murder.
THE JUDICIARY AS A GUARDIAN OF PRESS FREEDOM
The killing of journalists implicates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. When journalists are targeted after exposing government negligence, it raises questions regarding:
- failure to prevent foreseeable harm
- ineffective investigation
- impunity
The higher judiciary has occasionally stepped in to protect the fourth estate, though the relief is often reactive. In cases like – the Mediaone case, the Supreme court overturned a government ban on a news channel, criticizing the use of “national security” as a blanket excuse, noting that criticizing the government does not make a press outlet “anti-establishment”[14]
Another case of protection of Journalistic sources – in the Pegasus spyware case, the Court explicitly acknowledged that state sponsored surveillance of journalist creates a severe chilling effect and emphasized that the source protection is a fundamental condition for press freedom.[15]
Press Freedom without physical safety becomes illusory.
HUMAN RIGHTS, IMPUNITY AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY
India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is bound to protect Freedom of Expression under Article 19 and the Right to Life under Article 6.[16] These obligations require the State to protect journalists from violence, conduct prompt and effective investigations and prevent impunity.
Failure to do so creates a culture of impunity and it fosters –
- self-censorship
- withdrawal from investigative reporting
- reduced accountability of public authorities.
A democracy weakens not only when journalists are silenced legally but also when they are silenced permanently through violence.
REFORMS AND THE WAY FORWARD
Despite Constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a), independent journalism in India remains structurally vulnerable due to misuse of criminal laws, weak investigative accountability, and economic pressures. Journalists reporting on corruption often face arrest under serious offences, harassment, or even violence, while impunity persists in many attacks.
Reform requires decriminalisation of defamation, statutory safeguards before arrest, limits on misuse of laws like sedition and UAPA, and an independent mechanism to investigate crimes against journalists. Transparency in government advertising, media ownership disclosure, anti-concentration rules, and a stronger Press Council are also necessary. Without such structural changes, democratic accountability will continue to depend on journalists operating under fear and risk.
Until these structural reforms are implemented, the burden of upholding democratic accountability will continue to fall on the shoulders of brave, independent journalists facing prosecution and violence from those in power.
CONCLUSION
Journalism in India stands at a constitutional crossroads. Although Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, economic pressures, misuse of criminal law, and violence against journalists weaken its practical exercise. The problem is not merely media bias, but systemic vulnerability.
When journalists exposing corruption or governmental negligence face prosecution, harassment, or assassination, the constitutional promise of free expression becomes fragile. Press freedom must therefore include protection from unreasonable legal restrictions, economic coercion, and physical violence. Strengthening legal safeguards, institutional independence, and accountability mechanisms is essential to preserve journalism as a pillar of democracy rather than a profession constrained by fear.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases
Bennett Coleman & Co v Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366
Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India (2021) SCC OnLine SC 985
Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr (Rajasthan High Court, 21 December 2024) (Arun Monga J)
Legislation
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
Constitution of India 1950
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967
International Instruments
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
Secondary Sources
BBC News, ‘Kashmir journalist Shujaat Bukhari shot dead in Srinagar’ (14 June 2018) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44488081 accessed 22 February 2025
Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘Indian journalist Shashikant Warishe killed after coverage of land dispute’ (8 February 2023) https://cpj.org/2023/02/indian-journalist-shashikant-warishe-killed-after-coverage-of-land-dispute/ accessed 22 February 2025
Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘CPJ urges justice 8 years after Indian journalist Gauri Lankesh’s murder’ (4 September 2025) https://cpj.org/2025/09/cpj-urges-justice-8-years-after-indian-journalist-gauri-lankeshs-murder/ accessed 22 February 2025
PRS Legislative Research, The Bharatiya Nyaya Second Sanhita, 2023 – Sedition (PRS India, 2023) https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nyaya-second-sanhita-2023 accessed 22 February 2026
Reporters Without Borders, India (2026) https://rsf.org/en/country/india accessed 21 February 2026
Staff T, ‘India Ranks 151 in World Press Freedom Index, Report Raises Alarm over Media Monopoly’ The News Minute https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/india-ranks-151-in-world-press-freedom-index-report-raises-alarm-over-media-monopoly accessed 21 February 2026
‘Sedition under BNS’ Drishti Judiciary (23 December 2024) https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/sedition-under-bns accessed 22 February 2026
[1] Goodreads, ‘Freedom of the Press Is Not Just Important to Democracy…’ Goodreads (online) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8366486-freedom-of-the-press-is-not-just-important-to-democracy accessed 23 February 2026.
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a).
[3] Staff T, ‘India Ranks 151 in World Press Freedom Index, Report Raises Alarm over Media Monopoly’ The News Minute https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/india-ranks-151-in-world-press-freedom-index-report-raises-alarm-over-media-monopoly accessed 21 February 2026.
[4] Reporters Without Borders, India (2026) https://rsf.org/en/country/india accessed 21 February 2026.
[5] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 152.
[6] PRS Legislative Research, The Bharatiya Nyaya Second Sanhita, 2023 – Sedition (PRS India, 2023) https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nyaya-second-sanhita-2023 accessed 22 February 2026.
[7] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, s 2(1)(o)
[8] Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 (SC).
[9] Shreya Singhal v Union of India [2015] 5 SCC 1, AIR 2015 SC 1523 (India).
[10] Committee to Protect Journalists, Dangerous Pursuit: In India, journalists who cover corruption may pay with their lives (29 August 2016) https://cpj.org/reports/2016/08/dangerous-pursuit-india-corruption-journalists-killed-impunity-chapter-1-jagendra-singh/ accessed 22 February 2026.
[11] Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘Indian journalist Shashikant Warishe killed after coverage of land dispute’ (8 February 2023) https://cpj.org/2023/02/indian-journalist-shashikant-warishe-killed-after-coverage-of-land-dispute/ accessed 22 February 2025.
[12] BBC News, ‘Kashmir journalist Shujaat Bukhari shot dead in Srinagar’ (14 June 2018) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44488081 accessed 22 February 2025.
[13] Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘CPJ urges justice 8 years after Indian journalist Gauri Lankesh’s murder’ (4 September 2025) https://cpj.org/2025/09/cpj-urges-justice-8-years-after-indian-journalist-gauri-lankeshs-murder/ accessed 22 February 2025
[14] Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366.
[15] Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India (2021) SCC OnLine SC 985.
[16] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, arts 6 and 19.
