Press Freedom Crisis: 7 Shocking Truths the Supreme Court Must Face to Save India’s Journalism

Fifty years after India’s Emergency, press freedom today faces subtler yet equally dangerous threats, from the weaponization of laws like UAPA and PMLA to invasive surveillance like Pegasus and routine internet shutdowns. The Supreme Court, long seen as a protector of civil liberties, has delivered landmark judgments—such as in Shreya Singhal and R. Rajagopal—but its inconsistent approach and reluctance to establish firm doctrinal safeguards undermine its credibility.

The chilling effect on journalism is growing, particularly in small towns, where legal harassment and denial of bail silence critical voices. The Court’s episodic relief in individual cases cannot substitute for systemic reform. Doctrinal clarity on sedition, vague laws, surveillance, and prolonged pre-trial detention is urgently needed. The Constitution Bench in S.G. Vombatkere, the pending Pegasus investigation, and enforcement of bail jurisprudence offer crucial opportunities.

Without judicial courage to draw clear constitutional boundaries, India risks eroding its democratic foundation. The time for symbolic rulings is over—the gavel must now protect the very soul of a free press.

Press Freedom Crisis: 7 Shocking Truths the Supreme Court Must Face to Save India’s Journalism

Fifty years after the dark chapter of India’s Emergency, when overt press censorship silenced dissent, the question of press freedom faces a more insidious challenge. While the Supreme Court has often been hailed as a bulwark against tyranny, its record in combating the subtle, covert forms of control strangling journalism today reveals troubling inconsistencies and unmet potential. The recent “very serious” ranking of 151/180 on the Press Freedom Index isn’t just a number; it’s a symptom demanding scrutiny of the Court’s role. 

From Overt Censorship to Covert Control: 

The Emergency (1975-77) showcased brutal, formal censorship. Today’s threats are often hidden: weaponized legal processes (UAPA, PMLA, defamation), invasive surveillance (Pegasus), and internet shutdowns creating an environment of pervasive fear – the chilling effect. The Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech and expression, encompassing press freedom, yet Article 19(2)’s “reasonable restrictions” have often been stretched thin. 

The Court’s Mixed Legacy: Landmarks and Lapses: 

Early Promise & Parliamentary Pushback: 

• Landmark rulings like Brij Bhushan (1950) and Romesh Thapar (1950) initially struck down pre-censorship, upholding robust free speech. 

• Parliament swiftly amended the Constitution (First Amendment, 1951) to widen Article 19(2)’s restrictions, setting the stage for future tension. 

• Inconsistent application followed: Virendra (1957) upheld broad censorship, while Ram Manohar Lohia (1960) demanded a “proximate link” to public disorder. Rangarajan (1989) later solidified the “spark in a powder keg” test for restricting speech. 

Economic Strangulation and Defamation: 

• Cases like Express Newspapers (1958), Sakal Papers (1962), and Bennett Coleman (1972) protected the press from laws crippling circulation or production capacity. 

• Indian Express (1984) acknowledged taxation’s potential burden but offered only limited relief. 

• R. Rajagopal (1994) crucially barred prior restraint based on potential defamation, a vital shield for critical reporting. 

The Digital Age & Acknowledging the Chill: 

• Shreya Singhal (2015) was a watershed moment. Striking down the draconian Section 66A IT Act, the Court explicitly recognized the “chilling effect” of vague laws and refused to accept heightened internet regulation without justification. Yet, implementation failures persisted long after the ruling. 

• Anuradha Bhasin (2020) acknowledged the internet as fundamental to free speech but failed to effectively challenge the Kashmir internet shutdown. The Court applied a problematic “comparative harm” test, making it difficult to prove the chilling effect on specific journalists or outlets. 

The Sedition Shadow & Doctrinal Confusion: 

• The ghost of sedition (Kedar Nath Singh, 1962), with its vague “tendency to cause disorder” standard, creates doctrinal confusion between “bad tendency” and the stricter “clear and present danger” test. 

• While Vinod Dua (2021) correctly quashed a sedition FIR against a journalist, it missed the chance to resolve this core ambiguity. 

• The rebranded “sedition” under Section 152 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (covering ‘subversion’, ‘separatism’), lacks judicial interpretation and risks perpetuating the same chilling effect. Cases like Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s (gagged after bail for a Facebook post) highlight this danger. 

The Weaponization of Law and Bail Injustice: 

The most pernicious modern threat is the weaponization of criminal law against journalists: 

• The “Pressing Charges” Report: Revealed systemic delays, low conviction rates (6%), and disproportionate targeting of small-town/regional journalists. Only 3% secured interim protection vs. 65% in metros. 

• Siddique Kappan’s “Open Jail”: Arrested under UAPA/PMLA while reporting Hathras, his bail conditions (weekly police reporting, travel to Luckwhile) amounted to prolonged punishment without conviction, chilling investigative journalism. 

• Rupesh Kumar Singh: Denied bail under UAPA since 2022 for reporting human rights/environmental issues in Jharkhand, despite SC precedents (K.A. Najeeb, Thwaha Fasal) emphasizing prolonged detention as a bail ground. A one-line rejection order exemplifies the inconsistency. 

Episodic Relief vs. Doctrinal Clarity: 

The Court has offered commendable episodic relief: 

• Protecting Abhishek Upadhyay (2024) from arrest for criticizing caste bias. 

• Quashing the FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi (2025) for a social media poem, emphasizing the “reasonable, strong-minded” reader standard. 

However, these are reactive measures. The core problem remains: a lack of clear, consistent standards and doctrinal clarity to proactively prevent the chilling effect and state overreach. The Court often seems reluctant to set broad principles, preferring case-by-case adjudication. 

The Unfinished Task: A Call for Judicial Courage 

Unlike the Emergency, fundamental rights aren’t suspended today. They are being eroded through the legal process itself. The Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, faces critical unfinished business: 

• Constitution Bench on Sedition (S.G. Vombatkere): Resolve the doctrinal mess in Kedar Nath and clearly define the limits of speech-restrictive laws like Section 152 BNS. Is “incitement to imminent violence” the only acceptable threshold? 

• Pegasus Case: Conclude the investigation transparently, make the full report public, and establish strong, enforceable safeguards against unlawful state surveillance that devastates source confidentiality and press freedom. 

• Chilling Effect Doctrine: Develop a coherent Indian jurisprudence recognizing vague laws and investigative harassment as unconstitutional per se due to their inevitable chilling effect. Move beyond requiring journalists to prove specific, immediate harm in each case. 

• UAPA/Bail Reform: Enforce its own precedents on bail under draconian laws rigorously, recognizing prolonged pre-trial detention as a severe infringement of liberty and a tool to silence critics. 

The Stakes: Memory and Democracy 

George Orwell warned of history being “scraped clean and reinscribed.” When journalists are silenced through legal harassment, surveillance, or fear, society loses its ability to document truth, contest power, and preserve collective memory. The Supreme Court’s episodic interventions, while vital, are insufficient. India needs its highest court to move beyond symbolic gestures and establish unambiguous, robust doctrinal safeguards against the covert strangulation of press freedom. The integrity of India’s democracy depends not just on the Court’s willingness to grant bail, but on its courage to draw bright lines in the sand against state overreach. The gavel must ring not just for individual relief, but for the foundational principle itself.