Exploring The Nexus Of Freedom Of The Press: Evolution Of Article 19, Restrictions, And Shield Laws In India

INTRODUCTION

Freedom of the press holds a monumental stand in different societies, basically revolving around the fundamental right of expression, receive information without any curtailment. Freedom of the Press is essential and eventually helps in the channeling and propagation of information with a certain outlook in the public domain. This right is a derivative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which enshrines freedom of speech and expression. Through the means of This article, it is aimed to dive into the presence of Freedom of the press, which is inherently present within this Article. Although the mention of Freedom of the press is not explicitly there in Article 19, it has been considered an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression by means of Judicial interpretation. Using this Article, the traces of its evolution, the freedoms provided to other nation’s press in this regard, its current state in our Country, and various other factors will be discussed here.

THE INHERENT PRESENCE OF “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS” UNDER Art.19:

As per Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, it is guaranteed to every citizen the right to speech and expression (provided that it does not harm the sovereignty and integrity of INDIA). As aforementioned, its explicit mention is not to be found in the article, but through the course of events and by the means of various Judicial events or catena of various judgments given, it was emphasized that the freedom of the press is implied/derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. In the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union of India (1958), it was acknowledged by the Supreme Court that the freedom of speech and expression is inclusive for expressing their views or circulating their views. The expression of views could be through speaking (orally) using writing or by means of audio-visual mechanisms. It was stated, that by these means the expression of views would cover the newspapers, various publications, periodicals, and other works(literary).

It was reasoned recurrently, that the freedom of speech and expression clasps the idea of propagation of views within its scope. Processes like print media play an influential/ very strong medium in exercising these freedoms. Hence, freedom of the press holds a monumental stand in freedom of speech and expression.

FROM WHERE WAS “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS” BORROWED FROM?

India since its independence has had various historical, philosophical, legal, and few international roots in its framing of these rights. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been borrowed from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides for Freedom of Expression and Press. However, the framers of our Constitution did not keep the exact phrase as it is in the Indian Constitution. On being asked about the Freedom of Press, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar said that no special mention is required for Freedom of the Press as it is inherent under the Freedom of Speech and expression. He also said that there is no difference between an Individual and the Press as far the Article 19 is concerned, but the same was not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution. In today’s era, the main influence/changes have been derived by the means of Judicial Interpretations and various judgments that have carved out the present-day rules into the light.

EVOLUTION OF “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS” THROUGH LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS.

The Judiciary has played an important role in broadening the scope of these rules laid through the means of landmark judgments. A few of the Landmark Judgments are:-

In the case of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, when the plea to ban the entry and circulation of a journal ‘Crossroads’(which criticized the governmental policies) was urged to be banned on the basis that it posed a threat to public safety, was turned down by the Court. It was stated it the government's plea was invalid and that the freedom of the press was recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Also, the Court acknowledged that Article 19(2)of the Indian Constitution talks about reasonable restrictions, but in this, the grounds for which these powers are exercised were nowhere to be found. Therefore, the concept of reasonable restrictions was clarified a little more.

Similarly, in the case of Sakal Papers v Union of India, the constitution guaranteed that the concept of freedom of the press holds an essential component concerning Freedom of Speech and expression. Landmark judgements like these played an important role in establishing precedents for judicial activism which helps in safeguarding these rights from the State. 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN INDIA: IS IT BEING EXERCISED PROPERLY?

India boasts a diverse spectrum of the media landscape, with a never-ending number of newspapers in different languages (differing from region to region), a multitude of news channels, and recently online platforms covering almost all the segments of news. Apart from these factors, there is a broader view, regarding the ownership of media houses, the political agendas and interferences, and various factors that hinder the functioning of the segment as a whole seen that the Courts have favoured the press and things related to its freedom, and have accorded it with the highest respect along with protection. Whilst these freedoms are provided to them, there are instances where the exercise of power remains a major challenge for the press people. There have been representative cases of assaults, harassment, attacks, etc, especially in the segment of investigative journalism. There have been frequently imposed cases of sedition, defamation, etc which hurt the members of the press. But at the same time, this may be a very opinionated reasoning to give as there are various other big Media Houses that escape this landscape, as they possess a monopolization in the market of this sector. As these politically affiliated media houses operate the amount of biasness increases. Due to this, the tag of manipulative(manipulated) media exists. It is commonly seen that if there is fierce criticism or any strong remarks, they start a channel of debates which may be again based on defamation/sedition, etc. These happenings, taper the ends of media coverage and in some cases may become arbitrary too.

RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

In the British era (pre-independence India), the administration introduced the concept of “independent journalism” but still some restrictions were imposed by the government then like the ‘Gagging Act’, which contained certain rules regarding the publication of news, its distribution, etc. Post-British era, the Freedom of the press is protected under the amended Constitution of India. This protection is exhaustive though or the granted freedom under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute as it could be subjected to certain restrictions (reasonable restrictions). These restrictions may be imposed when anything verbally or written or in the form of audio-visual medium hinders the sovereignty or the integrity of our nation (INDIA), the relations that India maintains with foreign nations, the security of the State, if there is contempt of Court, etc. These grounds are mentioned exclusively in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The previously mentioned grounds are the reasonable restrictions where this freedom can be curbed. These guidelines are relied on by the different courts and segments of government. Other restrictions that were imposed by the judiciary, for instance in the worker journalist case of 1958, it was stated that few reasonable restrictions would be imposed in the interest of freedom so that a proper environment would be created to exercise these liberties effectively. 

In the case of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd,1982 the rule against ‘’undue encroachment’ was introduced, which means that the government cannot impose the restrictions in a way that may extinguish the right itself. Basically, by this, it was meant that although the Constitution may allow few reasonable restrictions on rights like freedom of speech and expression, etc, it cannot be so curtailing that it nullifies the right itself. Hence, this ‘rule’ was introduced to the government’s excuse of “reasonable restrictions”. It was clear on this basis that these rules were made for the regulation of the right and not to curb the right completely.

Apart from the restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, several other restrictions had to be dealt with by the Supreme Court which curtailed freedom. For instance, different sedition (under section 124A IPC) and defamation laws in which the Apex Court held that sedition and defamation cannot be invoked for criticism. It was made clear that just because someone makes a statement to criticize the government doesn't invoke offence under the sedition and defamation laws. There were some guidelines to be followed to invoke sedition. In short, this meant that alleging the journalists on the above basis counters the rights of speech and expression. This highlighted the stumbling blocks that the community(press) faced. In the case of Vinod Dua v Union of India,2021. The Apex Court canceled sedition charges against the appellant after referring to an order dated back in 1962 which protected every journalist from any of these related charges.

Adding to this, the subtle methods used by different public figures/politicians reflect the use of defamation under IPC’s section 499-500. These methods are used to muzzle up the reporting of the press. However, it is assured by the judiciary that these defamatory statements would be judged first on the facts and truth and any action would be taken accordingly.

Different countries have different measures to protect the rights of Journalists. One of these statutory laws is ‘Shield Laws’. However, these are not comprehensively present in India. These laws allow journalists to refuse to share their confidential sources of information during court proceedings. This right was denied in India on the basis that there is no exemption to journalists from disclosing their sources of investigation, even though the right to freedom of the press was recognized.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The scope of the press and its rights vary from place to place (about countries). Every country has a different judicial interpretation of the same. Few countries like the U.S. have an expressly mentioned provision for the press (mentioned in their First Amendment of the Constitution). The rights enjoyed by the press people are strictly guarded, but it is to be noted that these rights are not absolute, i.e. they may have restricted freedom in some aspects. But in countries like Sweden, and Norway (the Scandinavian countries) the press has ranked at the top globally concerning the freedom granted to the press, along with the robust legal protection they get. On the contrary, countries like China, and North Korea have very restrictive modes/freedoms for their press. Globally, India is in a position that oscillates between the position of a mature democracy and at the same time an emerging one about these freedoms.

CRITICAL APPRECIATION

In the Indian context, these freedoms, though not absolute, still have a sacrosanct right that is the balustrade of any healthy economy. A country’s media/press is a very essential and powerful tool to communicate the ideas that could bring big reforms. It holds a powerful flow of information; it acts as a voice to the voiceless. However, as this is a huge task, a huge responsibility should complement it. It should be ensured that the principles of ethics, truth, and fairness are maintained at all times.

CONCLUSION

In the Indian terrain, it has to enhance its ways/approaches so that it is helpful for the press people. The legal foundations are strong for the rights, but the treatment/ challenges they face are not yet addressed properly. There are some necessary reforms to be made so that the exercise of power would be practiced freely. These freedoms under Article 19 are a beacon of responsibility and accountability. As the country advances towards a new digital age, there is a new set of challenges to combat. Thus, it is imperative to guarantee these freedoms so that there is a pluralistic landscape of media that could serve as a medium against injustice.