Freedom of the Press and Article 19

I. Introduction: The Constitutional Imperative of Press Freedom in India

A. The Foundational Role of Free Speech and Press in Indian Democracy

The Constitution of India, the supreme law of the land, establishes a democratic republic founded upon ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.¹ Central to the realization of these ideals, particularly liberty, is the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).² This right is often described as the “mother” of all other freedoms, a cornerstone of democratic organizations, indispensable for the expansion and fulfillment of individual personality, and crucial for public education and informed participation in the processes of popular government.³ The very Preamble of the Constitution explicitly secures to all citizens the “LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship,” signifying the high importance attached to these freedoms by the framers.¹ This constitutional significance is immediately translated into a justiciable fundamental right in Part III.⁶ This emphasis likely stems from India’s own history, where the press played a significant role in the freedom struggle against colonial rule, often facing suppression through restrictive laws like the Vernacular Press Act.⁷

Within this framework, the press, often termed the “fourth estate,” occupies a critical position.⁷ Though not explicitly named in Article 19(1)(a), the freedom of the press is universally understood and judicially confirmed to be encompassed within the broader right to freedom of speech and expression.³ The media serves as a vital conduit for information, a platform for public discourse, a watchdog monitoring governance, exposing corruption, and holding those in power accountable.⁷ Its role is essential for ensuring transparency, facilitating informed public participation, and strengthening the democratic process.⁸

However, the constitutional design itself acknowledges that this freedom, including for the press, is not absolute.³ Article 19(1) grants the fundamental freedoms, but Articles 19(2) through 19(6) immediately follow, outlining specific grounds upon which the State can impose “reasonable restrictions” on these rights.³ This inherent structure signifies a deliberate balancing act intended by the framers, navigating the complex relationship between individual liberty and collective interests such as national security, public order, and decency.⁴ This report delves into this intricate balance, analyzing the scope of press freedom under Article 19(1)(a), the nature and application of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), the historical evolution of judicial interpretation, landmark rulings that have shaped this field, the contemporary challenges faced by the press in India, and potential future prospects.

B. Scope and Structure of the Report

This report provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the freedom of the press as protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It begins by examining the scope of rights implicitly granted to the press under Article 19(1)(a). It then scrutinizes the permissible restrictions outlined in Article 19(2), focusing on the grounds most relevant to media operations and the crucial concept of ‘reasonable restrictions’. The report traces the historical development of judicial thinking on press freedom, highlighting key shifts and trends from the early post-independence period to the present day. A significant portion is dedicated to analyzing landmark Supreme Court judgments, dissecting their facts, rulings, reasoning, and the judicial philosophies they reveal. Following this, the report assesses the current practical state of press freedom in India, considering recent legal and regulatory developments, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the challenges encountered by journalists and media organizations. Finally, it explores potential future challenges and debates concerning digital media regulation, national security concerns, and evolving societal norms impacting press freedom. The analysis relies exclusively on authoritative sources, including constitutional text, legislative enactments, official court reports, respected legal databases, and scholarly publications.

II. Article 19(1)(a): The Scope of Freedom of Speech and Expression for the Press

A. Constitutional Text and Foundational Interpretation

Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to citizens.³ The first, and arguably most pivotal for the press, is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a), which states: “All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression”.¹ It is crucial to note that this right is explicitly granted to “citizens” of India, not to all persons or entities, although its exercise significantly impacts the public sphere.⁶

The phrase “freedom of the press” does not appear explicitly in Article 19(1)(a) or elsewhere in the Constitution.⁷ This contrasts with constitutional frameworks like that of the United States, which specifically mentions “freedom… of the press” in its First Amendment.²¹ Despite this textual omission, Indian jurisprudence, from its very inception, has consistently held that the freedom of the press is implicitly included within the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.³ This interpretation was articulated during the Constituent Assembly debates by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, who argued that the press, being composed of citizens (editors, managers, writers), merely exercises the individual citizen’s right of expression when publishing, and thus required no special mention.⁷

This foundational interpretation means the press, legally, possesses no rights superior to those of an ordinary citizen under Article 19(1)(a).⁷ However, while the source of the right is common, the application and the weight given to press freedom in the balancing exercise against Article 19(2) restrictions are significantly influenced by the judiciary’s recognition of the press’s vital function in a democracy – informing the public, facilitating debate, and ensuring governmental accountability.³ Landmark judgments frequently preface their analysis by emphasizing this crucial role.³ This creates a nuanced constitutional position for the press, distinct from systems with explicit press clauses but equally protective in principle.

B. Implicit Rights Encompassed within Press Freedom

Judicial interpretation has fleshed out the specific rights inherent in the press’s freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a):

1. Freedom of Publication: This is the core right to express views, opinions, and information through print, broadcast, or digital media without prior restraint or censorship, subject only to post-publication restrictions permissible under Article 19(2).⁶
2. Freedom of Circulation: Recognized early on as indispensable to the freedom of publication (Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras ³), this freedom ensures the right to disseminate published material to the widest possible audience. Any measure that restricts circulation, whether directly (like a ban) or indirectly (through prohibitive economic burdens, page limits, or newsprint controls), is considered an infringement of Article 19(1)(a).³ Landmark cases like Sakal Papers v. Union of India ¹⁸ and Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India ³ strongly affirmed that freedom includes the volume of circulation and cannot be curtailed by regulations targeting newspaper size or economics if it impacts expression.
3. Right to Receive Information / Right to Know: The Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive information and ideas.⁶ This right is fundamental for citizens to form informed opinions and participate effectively in democracy.⁶ For the press, this translates into a right to gather news and information concerning the administration of government and matters of public importance, although this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions and the consent of information sources.³ Cases like Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India ³ and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain ⁶ underscore this aspect. This transforms the freedom from merely a speaker’s right to an audience’s right as well, underpinning the press’s role as an information conduit and strengthening challenges against excessive government secrecy.⁴⁴
4. Right to Dissent and Criticize Government: The freedom encompasses the right to express critical opinions about the government, its policies, and actions, even if those views are unpopular or unconventional.¹⁰ This right is crucial for accountability but often faces challenges through the application of laws like sedition or defamation.¹⁰
5. Commercial Speech (Advertising): The Supreme Court has recognized that commercial speech, such as advertising, is protected under Article 19(1)(a).⁶ This is particularly relevant for the press, as advertising revenue is often crucial for the economic viability of newspapers and media outlets, thereby impacting their ability to circulate information and exercise their freedom of expression.⁵
6. Right to Report Court and Legislative Proceedings: Journalists generally possess the right to attend and publish fair and accurate reports of proceedings in courts and legislatures.¹⁴ This right is vital for public awareness and transparency. However, it is subject to limitations, such as restrictions imposed by courts in the interest of justice (e.g., holding proceedings in camera) or parliamentary privilege.¹⁴
7. Right to Silence: The freedom to speak also implies the freedom not to speak or to remain silent. This was affirmed in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, where students conscientiously objecting to singing the national anthem were protected.³

C. Distinguishing Article 19(1)(a) from Article 19(1)(g): Expression vs. Business

The operation of media involves two distinct facets constitutionally protected under Article 19:

• Article 19(1)(a): Protects the freedom of speech and expression – the content, publication, and circulation of news and views.³⁰ Restrictions are governed by Article 19(2).
• Article 19(1)(g): Protects the freedom “to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.³ This covers the business and professional aspects of running a media organization.³⁰ Restrictions on this right are permissible under Article 19(6) “in the interests of the general public”.³

It is argued that these two rights, while intertwined in practice for media entities, are legally distinct and subject to different sets of restrictions.³⁰ Problems can arise if the broader restrictions permissible under Article 19(6) for regulating the business aspect are used in a way that unduly infringes upon the core expressive freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and protected by the stricter conditions of Article 19(2).³⁰ The judiciary must ensure that regulations targeting the business dimension do not effectively curtail the fundamental right to free expression.

III. Article 19(2): Permissible Restrictions and the Balancing Act

A. Analyzing the Grounds for Restriction

While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) immediately qualifies this right, outlining the specific grounds upon which the State can enact laws imposing reasonable restrictions.³ As amended, primarily by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 ³ and later the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, Article 19(2) reads:

“Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” ³

The First Amendment (1951) was a direct legislative reaction to early Supreme Court decisions like Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan, which had struck down restrictions based on ‘public safety’ or ‘public order’ as being broader than the original grounds in Article 19(2).³⁸ The amendment retrospectively validated laws imposing restrictions in the interest of ‘public order’, ‘friendly relations with foreign States’, and ‘incitement to an offence’.³² The ground ‘sovereignty and integrity of India’ was added later by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1963.⁵

Several of these grounds are particularly pertinent to the press:

• Public Order: This ground, introduced by the First Amendment, has been subject to varied judicial interpretation.⁵² Courts have distinguished it from the lesser threshold of ‘law and order’, requiring a more serious disturbance affecting the community at large.⁵² Early interpretations sometimes applied a ‘tendency’ test (Ramji Lal Modi ⁴⁶), while later cases emphasized a need for a proximate link or ‘spark in a powder keg’ relationship between the speech and the disorder (Ram Manohar Lohia, S. Rangarajan ⁵²). Despite the proximity test, the ground has been invoked broadly to justify actions like suspending media channels critical of riot handling, internet shutdowns to prevent cheating or quell unrest, and restricting protests.⁴³ The colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A IPC) was upheld in Kedar Nath Singh by linking it to the tendency to cause public disorder.¹⁰
• Security of the State: This allows restrictions to protect the country from serious threats like war, rebellion, or insurrection.³ It is often invoked in cases involving sensitive reporting, particularly from conflict zones or concerning national security matters.²⁰ Courts are expected to scrutinize such claims carefully, as seen in the Madhyamam Broadcasting case, where the Supreme Court rejected the government’s reliance on undisclosed national security concerns.⁴⁹
• Defamation: Protects individuals’ reputations from harm caused by false and damaging statements.³ India retains both civil and criminal defamation (Section 499, 500 IPC). Criminal defamation has been frequently used against journalists, raising concerns about its chilling effect.¹⁶ While its constitutionality was upheld in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India ⁴⁵, balancing reputation (seen as part of Article 21 dignity ⁴⁵) with free speech remains contentious. Defences like truth (for public good) and fair comment on matters of public interest exist.⁴¹
• Incitement to an Offence: Added by the First Amendment, this ground allows restriction of speech that directly encourages or provokes the commission of a crime.³ This is closely related to discussions around hate speech and sedition.¹⁰
• Decency or Morality: This ground allows restrictions on speech deemed obscene or offensive to public morals.³ Its application is often subjective and controversial, particularly in the context of art, literature, and film censorship.¹⁶
• Contempt of Court: This restriction aims to protect the judiciary’s authority and ensure the proper administration of justice.³ It prohibits publications that scandalize the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct justice.³⁰ Defining the line between legitimate criticism and contempt remains a challenge.³⁰

B. The Doctrine of ‘Reasonable Restrictions’

A critical element introduced by the First Amendment is the requirement that any restriction imposed under Article 19(2) (and other clauses from 19(3) to 19(6)) must be “reasonable”.³ This term acts as a crucial safeguard, subjecting legislative and executive actions that limit fundamental freedoms to judicial review.²¹

For a restriction to be considered reasonable, courts typically examine several factors:

• It must be imposed by, or under the authority of, a duly enacted law, not by mere executive fiat.¹⁹
• It must have a rational connection to the specific objective or ground mentioned in Article 19(2) (e.g., public order, security of the State).²⁸
• The restriction must not be excessive or arbitrary; it should be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.⁴³ This involves considering the nature of the right being restricted, the underlying purpose of the restriction, the extent and urgency of the evil being addressed, and the duration of the restriction.²¹ The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin explicitly invoked the test of proportionality for restrictions involving internet shutdowns.⁴³

The determination of reasonableness is ultimately a judicial function, assessed on a case-by-case basis.³⁰ However, the inherent ambiguity of “reasonableness” has made it a primary point of contention. While intended as a check on state power, its flexible nature allows for significant judicial discretion, leading to fluctuating interpretations over time and a degree of unpredictability for those exercising their freedom of speech, including the press.⁵² What one bench considers reasonable, another might not, contributing to legal uncertainty.

C. Core Issues in Balancing Freedom and Restriction

The application of Article 19(2) inevitably involves balancing the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression against the legitimate interests the restrictions aim to protect. This balancing act gives rise to several core tensions, particularly for the press:

• The Fundamental Conflict: At its heart lies the challenge of safeguarding vital state and societal interests (security, order, reputation, morality) without unduly stifling the free flow of information and critical discourse necessary for a functioning democracy.¹⁰
• National Security vs. Public’s Right to Know: Governments often cite national security to restrict reporting on sensitive issues, military operations, or investigations. This clashes with the press’s role in informing the public and ensuring transparency.¹⁰ The controversy surrounding the use of ‘sealed covers’ in court proceedings, where information justifying restrictions is withheld from the affected party and the public, epitomizes this tension (Madhyamam Broadcasting ⁴⁹).
• Public Order vs. Dissent: The broad ground of ‘public order’ is frequently used to curtail critical reporting, coverage of protests, or dissemination of information deemed likely to cause unrest, potentially silencing legitimate dissent.¹⁰
• Reputation (Defamation) vs. Free Speech: Protecting individual dignity and reputation (recognized as flowing from Article 21 ⁴⁵) must be balanced against the press’s duty to investigate and report on matters of public interest, which may involve criticism of public figures or institutions.⁴⁵ The availability of criminal defamation adds a sharp edge to this conflict.⁴⁵
• Privacy vs. Freedom of Press: Journalistic investigation may sometimes intrude into areas individuals consider private. The balance lies between the public interest in the information being reported and the individual’s right to privacy.³⁹

A significant doctrinal point arises here. Traditionally, Article 19(2) has been seen as providing an exhaustive list of grounds for restricting free speech.⁴⁹ This means restrictions cannot typically be justified based on grounds not enumerated therein, such as general ‘public interest’ or the need to protect another fundamental right directly. However, some judicial pronouncements engage in ‘balancing’ Article 19(1)(a) directly against other fundamental rights, such as Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, encompassing dignity, reputation, privacy, fair trial).⁴⁵ This ‘balancing doctrine’ potentially allows speech to be restricted to protect rights not explicitly listed in Article 19(2), creating a conceptual tension with the principle of exhaustive grounds and potentially widening the scope for permissible restrictions.⁶⁵

IV. The Evolution of Press Freedom Jurisprudence in India

The judicial interpretation of press freedom under Article 19 has not been static. It has evolved over decades, shaped by landmark cases, legislative amendments, changing technologies, and the prevailing socio-political context. This evolution reveals a dynamic interplay between judicial protection and legislative/executive control.

A. Early Post-Independence Era (1950s-1960s): Defining the Contours

In the immediate aftermath of independence, the Supreme Court laid the foundational principles. The landmark cases of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) ¹⁶ and Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950) ³ established that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) included freedom of the press, encompassing the crucial aspect of circulation.³ The Court took a strong stance against prior restraint (pre-censorship) ¹⁶ and struck down restrictions imposed under laws citing grounds like ‘public safety’ or ‘public order’, deeming them broader than the specific, limited grounds enumerated in the original Article 19(2) (which primarily focused on libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court, decency/morality, and undermining the security of or overthrowing the State).³ These judgments reflected an expansive reading of press freedom and a strict interpretation of permissible limitations.

This robust judicial protection prompted a swift legislative response. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, amended Article 19(2) retrospectively.³ It introduced ‘public order’, ‘friendly relations with foreign States’, and ‘incitement to an offence’ as new grounds for restriction, and significantly, added the qualifier “reasonable” to restrictions, explicitly empowering judicial review of their proportionality.³ This amendment aimed to counteract the effects of the Thappar and Bhushan rulings.³ The immediate aftermath saw courts grappling with these changes, sometimes appearing more deferential to legislative action, as arguably seen in State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi.⁴⁶

Despite the broadened scope for restrictions, the judiciary continued to guard against measures seen as unduly impinging on the press’s operational freedom. In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1962) ¹⁸, the Supreme Court struck down the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the associated Order, which regulated the number of pages a newspaper could publish based on its price and allocated space for advertisements. The Court held that fixing the number of pages directly impacted circulation and the dissemination of news and views, thus violating Article 19(1)(a).¹⁸ It emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and expression extends to the volume of circulation and cannot be curtailed even for potentially laudable objectives like preventing monopolies if the restriction directly impacts the fundamental right and is not saved by the specific grounds in Article 19(2).¹⁸

B. Consolidation and Expansion (1970s-1980s): Economic Viability and Access

The principles laid down in Sakal Papers were strongly reinforced in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972).³ The Court invalidated the government’s Newsprint Policy, which imposed restrictions on page limits, the number of pages, prohibition of new editions, and limits on newspapers under common ownership. It reiterated that freedom of the press is both qualitative and quantitative, encompassing content and circulation volume.³ Direct restrictions on newspaper pages, circulation, or growth were held to violate Article 19(1)(a), regardless of the stated objective (like equitable distribution of newsprint or preventing monopolies), as such objectives did not fall under the permissible grounds of Article 19(2).³⁶ The Court viewed press freedom as embodying the people’s right to free speech and expression.³

This period of judicial consolidation was dramatically interrupted by the declaration of Emergency (1975-1977). During this time, fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, were suspended, and severe press censorship was imposed.¹³ News outlets faced prior restraint, requiring content clearance from government censors, leading to widespread self-censorship and demonstrating the vulnerability of constitutional guarantees against determined executive action.¹³

Following the revocation of the Emergency, the judiciary reasserted the importance of press freedom. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1984) ³⁶, the Court addressed a challenge to customs duty imposed on imported newsprint. While acknowledging that the press is not immune from general taxes, the Court held that taxation could not be used as a means to cripple or unduly burden the press.²¹ If a tax imposes an excessive burden that directly affects circulation and freedom of speech, it becomes unconstitutional.³⁶ The Court directed the government to re-examine its taxation policy considering its impact on press freedom, famously declaring, “As long as the Court sits, newspapermen need not have the fear of their freedom being curtailed by unconstitutional means”.³⁸ This era also saw the consolidation of the ‘Right to Know’ as part of Article 19(1)(a) in cases like Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India (1982).³

C. The Era of Public Interest Litigation and New Challenges (1990s-Present)

The later decades witnessed the expansion of press freedom concepts to new media and the emergence of fresh challenges. The Supreme Court recognized that the right to freedom of speech and expression extends to broadcast media, emphasizing the public’s right to receive diverse views (Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) ⁶).

The rise of digital media brought unprecedented challenges. The judiciary responded robustly in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) ⁴², striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for vagueness and overbreadth, setting a high bar for restricting online speech. However, the regulation of online content remains a contested area, with challenges to the IT Rules, 2021, and subsequent amendments (like the 2023 Fact Check Unit rule) ongoing (Kunal Kamra v. Union of India ⁷²). Internet shutdowns became another battleground, leading to the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) judgment ⁴³, which declared indefinite shutdowns illegal and mandated proportionality and transparency, though implementation remains an issue.⁴⁴

Simultaneously, concerns grew over the misuse of existing laws and the invocation of national security. The interpretation and application of the sedition law (Sec 124A IPC), despite the limiting construction in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) ¹⁰, continued to generate controversy, with frequent charges against journalists and critics.¹⁰ The Supreme Court eventually put the law on hold in May 2022 and referred challenges to its constitutionality to a larger bench in September 2023.⁴⁹ The use of stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against journalists and media houses (e.g., NewsClick case ³⁸) marked a significant escalation, raising alarms about the chilling effect on critical journalism.³⁸ The judiciary also pushed back against opaque national security claims in the Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (MediaOne Case) (2023) ⁴⁹, quashing a broadcast ban based on undisclosed intelligence inputs and criticizing the sealed cover procedure.

This historical overview reveals a continuous tension. Judicial pronouncements often expand or protect press freedom, reacting to perceived overreach. Subsequently, legislative or executive actions attempt to regulate or curtail these freedoms, often citing new technological or security challenges. The Emergency serves as a stark historical example of how fragile these constitutional protections can be against determined state action.¹³ Furthermore, judicial philosophy itself is not monolithic; while foundational judgments strongly favored press freedom, later decisions show varying degrees of deference to state interests, particularly concerning national security or public order, even as landmark rulings protecting speech continue to emerge.⁴⁶ This indicates that judicial approaches evolve, influenced by context, specific facts, and bench composition, rather than adhering to a single, unchanging stance.

V. Landmark Supreme Court Judgments

The contours of press freedom under Article 19 in India have been significantly shaped by a series of landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. These cases have interpreted the scope of the right, the limits of permissible restrictions, and the balance between press freedom and other constitutional values.

A. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) AIR 1950 SC 124

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: The petitioner challenged an order by the Madras government, under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, banning the entry and circulation of his Bombay-based weekly journal ‘Cross Roads’ within the state. The ban was imposed for the purpose of securing “public safety” and maintaining “public order.” The Supreme Court quashed the government’s order, holding the relevant provision of the Act void.³
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court, speaking through Patanjali Sastri J., famously declared that “freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations”.³ It established that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) inherently includes the freedom of propagation of ideas, which is ensured by the freedom of circulation.³ The Court reasoned that without circulation, publication would be of little value.²² Crucially, it held that restrictions on this freedom could only be imposed on the grounds specifically enumerated in the original Article 19(2). The grounds cited in the Madras Act – ‘public safety’ and ‘public order’ – were found to be wider in scope than “security of the State,” one of the limited grounds then permissible under Article 19(2). Therefore, the law authorizing the restriction was deemed unconstitutional.³ The Court emphasized that limitations must be “narrowly and stringently” confined to the matters specified in Article 19(2).⁴⁰
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This judgment represents an early, robust, and expansive interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) in favor of press freedom. It adopted a strict construction of the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), refusing to equate broader concepts like ‘public order’ with the specific constitutional ground of ‘security of the State’. It placed a high value on the press’s role in democratic education and public discourse. This ruling was a primary catalyst for the First Amendment to the Constitution, which explicitly added ‘public order’ as a ground for restriction.³

B. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950) AIR 1950 SC 129

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: This case involved a challenge to a pre-censorship order imposed by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi on the English weekly ‘Organiser’. The order, issued under the East Punjab Public Safety Act, required the publisher to submit all communal matter and news about Pakistan for scrutiny before publication. The Supreme Court struck down the pre-censorship order.²¹
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Romesh Thappar. It held that pre-censorship constitutes a significant restriction on the freedom of speech and expression.²¹ Similar to Thappar, the Court found that the grounds for imposing the restriction under the relevant Act (‘public safety’ and ‘public order’) were broader than those permitted by the original Article 19(2).²³ Therefore, the law authorizing such prior restraint was unconstitutional.³⁸
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This case reinforced the Court’s strong opposition to prior restraint on publication. It cemented the strict interpretation of Article 19(2) established in Thappar. Like Thappar, it underscored the judiciary’s early commitment to protecting press freedom from broad executive control and contributed to the impetus for the First Amendment.³⁸

C. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1962) AIR 1962 SC 305

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: The pend Page) Order, 1960. These measures empowered the government to regulate the price of newspapers in relation to their pages and to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matter. The Supreme Court declared the Act and the Order unconstitutional.¹⁸
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes not only the liberty to propagate ideas but also the freedom of circulation and the volume of circulation.¹⁸ By fixing the number of pages according to price and controlling advertising space, the Act and Order directly impacted the newspaper’s circulation and its ability to disseminate news and views.¹⁸ The Court reasoned that the State cannot place restrictions on the right under Article 19(1)(a) that directly diminish or curtail it, even if the object is desirable (like preventing unfair competition or promoting small newspapers). Such restrictions must fall within the grounds specified in Article 19(2).¹⁸ Since the impugned regulations were not primarily aimed at addressing issues like public order or security of the State, they were not saved by Article 19(2).¹⁸ The Court emphasized that the freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or circulate to any number of people is an integral part of the freedom of speech.¹⁸
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This judgment significantly broadened the protection of press freedom to include its economic and operational aspects. It established that governmental regulations impacting the business side of newspapers (like page limits or price controls) are subject to scrutiny under Article 19(1)(a) if they directly affect the dissemination of information. It showed a judicial understanding that restricting the means of expression can be tantamount to restricting the expression itself.

D. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) (1972) 2 SCC 788

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: This case challenged the government’s Newsprint Policy for 1972-73, which imposed several restrictions: a continuation of the ban on starting new newspapers or new editions by common ownership units, a limit of ten pages for all newspapers, a 20% increase in pages allowed only for papers under ten pages, and a prohibition on interchangeability of newsprint between different newspapers of the same group. The Supreme Court struck down the restrictive elements of the policy.³
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Ray, strongly reaffirmed the principles of Sakal Papers. It held that freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) encompasses both quantitative and qualitative aspects, including the volume of circulation and the number of pages.³ The Court found that the newsprint policy’s restrictions on page numbers, circulation, and the establishment of new papers directly abridged the freedom of speech and expression.³⁶ It rejected the government’s argument that the policy was merely regulating the business aspect under Article 19(1)(g) or aimed at equitable distribution, stating that the effect of the restrictions was a direct infringement on the content and circulation, thus violating Article 19(1)(a).³⁶ The Court emphasized that the press represents the public’s right to free expression.³
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This case marked a high point in the judicial protection of press freedom against governmental control exerted through economic or regulatory means, specifically newsprint allocation. It robustly defended the operational autonomy of newspapers regarding size and circulation, viewing these as integral to their expressive function. The judgment underscored the interconnectedness of the means of publication and the freedom itself.

E. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1984) (1985) 1 SCC 641

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: Newspaper companies challenged the imposition of customs duty on imported newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and auxiliary duty under the Finance Act, 1981. They argued that this levy constituted an excessive economic burden that hampered the financial viability of newspapers, thereby restricting circulation and infringing freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court did not strike down the imposition of the duty itself but directed the central government to re-examine its taxation policy concerning newsprint, taking into account the need to maintain press freedom.³⁶
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court, per Venkataramiah J., acknowledged that the press is not immune from general laws of taxation.²¹ However, it held that taxation could become unconstitutional if it is specifically targeted at the press or imposes a burden that is excessive, crippling, or disproportionately affects the press’s ability to function and circulate information.³⁶ The power to tax must be balanced against the freedom of expression.³⁶ Courts have the jurisdiction to review whether a tax imposes an unconstitutional burden on press freedom.³⁶ While upholding the government’s power to levy the duty, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the impact on newspaper circulation and the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) when determining the rate and application of the tax.³⁶ The judgment contained the often-quoted line assuring newspapermen of judicial protection against unconstitutional curtailment of their freedom.³⁸
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This case represents a more nuanced approach compared to Sakal or Bennett Coleman. It recognized the state’s legitimate power of taxation but subjected it to the constraints of Article 19(1)(a) when applied to the press. It demonstrated a judicial willingness to intervene not necessarily by striking down a law, but by directing executive reconsideration based on constitutional principles. It affirmed the judiciary’s role as a guardian against economic measures that could stifle the press.

F. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 1962 SC 955

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: The appellant was convicted under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for making allegedly seditious speeches. The constitutional validity of Section 124A itself was challenged as being violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but significantly narrowed its scope.¹⁰
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court, led by Chief Justice B.P. Sinha, acknowledged the conflict between the literal wording of Section 124A (which penalized exciting “disaffection” towards the government) and the guarantee of free speech. To reconcile the two, the Court adopted the principle of ‘reading down’ the provision.⁵⁵ It held that Section 124A would be constitutionally valid only if interpreted narrowly.⁵⁶ The Court ruled that the offence of sedition is committed only when words, written or spoken, etc., have the intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incite violence.¹⁰ Mere criticism of the government, however strongly worded, or expressions of disapprobation aimed at achieving change through lawful means, without this tendency towards violence or public disorder, would not constitute sedition.⁴⁷ This interpretation was deemed necessary to bring the restriction within the ambit of “public order” and “security of the State” under Article 19(2).⁵⁶ The Court also distinguished between the “Government established by law” (as the visible symbol of the State) and the persons temporarily conducting administration.⁵⁷
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This is a classic example of judicial balancing and employing the technique of ‘reading down’ to save a pre-constitutional statute from unconstitutionality. By requiring a high threshold (incitement to violence/disorder), the Court attempted to limit the provision’s potential conflict with Article 19(1)(a). While upholding the law, the judgment aimed to protect legitimate criticism and dissent. However, the gap between this narrow judicial interpretation and its often broader application by law enforcement agencies remains a persistent issue, leading to continued debate and challenges regarding the law’s chilling effect.¹⁰

G. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) (2015) 5 SCC 1

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which penalized sending information via computer resources or communication devices that was “grossly offensive,” had “menacing character,” caused “annoyance” or “inconvenience,” or was misleading. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional.⁴²
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court, through Justice Nariman, found Section 66A to be violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2).⁵³ The primary grounds were vagueness and overbreadth.⁷¹ The terms used in the section, such as “grossly offensive,” “annoying,” “inconvenient,” and “menacing,” were held to be undefined, subjective, and capable of broad interpretation, leading to uncertainty about what conduct was prohibited.⁷¹ This vagueness could lead to arbitrary application and failed to provide clear guidance to both individuals and law enforcement.⁷¹ Furthermore, the Court held that the restrictions imposed by Section 66A were not covered by any of the grounds listed in Article 19(2). Causing annoyance, inconvenience, or being offensive are not permissible grounds for restricting free speech under the Constitution.⁷¹ The provision was deemed overbroad because it could punish constitutionally protected speech along with unprotected speech, creating a significant chilling effect on online expression.⁷¹ The Court rejected the possibility of severing the unconstitutional parts, finding the entire section flawed.⁷¹
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This is a landmark judgment safeguarding freedom of speech in the digital age. It strongly reaffirms the principles that restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored, clearly defined, and fall strictly within the constitutionally permissible grounds of Article 19(2). The judgment demonstrates a low tolerance for vagueness and overbreadth in laws restricting fundamental rights and highlights the importance of protecting online discourse, even if it is unpopular or offensive to some.

H. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) (2020) 3 SCC 637

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: The petition challenged the indefinite shutdown of internet services and imposition of movement restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. The petitioner, an editor, argued this violated press freedom and the right to practice a profession. The Supreme Court ruled that indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible under Indian law. It directed the government to review all restriction orders based on principles of necessity and proportionality and publish them.⁴³
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Court explicitly recognized that the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation (Article 19(1)(g)) over the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected.⁴³ While acknowledging that these rights are not absolute and can be restricted (e.g., for national security or public order under Article 19(2) and 19(6)), the Court emphasized that such restrictions must adhere strictly to the doctrine of proportionality.⁴³ Any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, and the least intrusive measure available. An indefinite suspension fails this test.⁴³ The Court also stressed the importance of procedural safeguards, ruling that orders imposing such restrictions must be made public to enable affected parties to challenge them, upholding the right to information and principles of transparency and accountability.⁴³ It reiterated the distinction between ‘law and order’ (lesser disturbances) and ‘public order’ (more serious threats).⁴³
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This judgment is significant for formally linking internet access to the exercise of fundamental rights under Article 19. It strongly reinforces the application of the proportionality principle as a check against arbitrary executive action, particularly in the context of communication shutdowns justified on grounds of public order or national security. It underscores the importance of transparency and judicial review in overseeing restrictions on fundamental rights.

I. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (MediaOne Case) (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366

• (a) Summary of Key Facts & Ruling: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting refused to renew the broadcast license of MediaOne TV, a Malayalam news channel, citing national security concerns based on intelligence inputs from the Ministry of Home Affairs. This information was provided to the Kerala High Court in a ‘sealed cover’, which upheld the ban. The channel appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court quashed the ban, setting aside the High Court’s judgment.⁴⁹
• (b) Analysis of Reasoning & Legal Principles: The Supreme Court Bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, delivered a strong critique of the government’s reliance on unsubstantiated national security claims and the use of the sealed cover procedure.⁴⁹ The Court held that while national security is a valid ground for restricting rights (under Article 19(2)), the state cannot merely invoke the term; it must produce material evidence to justify the claim of a threat.⁴⁹ Relying on undisclosed information in a sealed cover violates principles of natural justice and fair hearing, as the affected party cannot effectively rebut the claims against them.⁴⁹ The Court emphasized that restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be justified based on the grounds in Article 19(2) and supported by evidence.
• (c) Judicial Trends/Philosophy Discernible: This judgment represents a significant pushback against the routine invocation of ‘national security’ as a justification for restricting media freedom without adequate evidence or transparency. It strongly disapproves of the sealed cover procedure when it impacts fundamental rights, championing principles of natural justice and open justice. It reinforces the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing executive actions that curtail Article 19(1)(a) rights, demanding reasoned justification rather than accepting blanket claims.

Across these landmark cases, a consistent theme emerges: the judiciary recognizes that press freedom extends beyond just the content of speech to encompass the essential means of expression and dissemination. Whether it’s the physical circulation of newspapers (Thappar), the number of pages and economic viability (Sakal, Bennett Coleman, Indian Express), or access to the medium itself like the internet (Anuradha Bhasin) or broadcast spectrum (CAB), the Court has generally viewed restrictions on these means with suspicion, understanding that hindering the practical ability to publish and reach an audience effectively curtails the freedom itself.

Another recurring pattern involves the Court’s approach to potentially restrictive laws like sedition or criminal defamation. While sometimes upholding their constitutional validity (Kedar Nath, Subramanian Swamy), the judiciary often attempts to ‘read them down’ or interpret them narrowly to align with Article 19(2)’s requirements (e.g., requiring incitement to violence for sedition). However, a critical issue persists: the significant gap between these narrow judicial interpretations and the often broader, more aggressive application of these laws by enforcement agencies.¹⁰ This discrepancy fuels the ‘chilling effect’, where the fear of arrest, prolonged legal battles, and harassment silences journalists and critics, even if their speech might ultimately be deemed constitutionally protected by higher courts.³⁸

Summary Table of Landmark Cases

Case Name & Citation	Year	Key Issue(s) Addressed	Core Ruling	Relevant Articles	Key Principles/Judicial Trend Noted
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124)	1950	Circulation, Scope of Art 19(2)	Ban on circulation invalid; ‘Public order’ wider than ‘Security of State’ (original Art 19(2)).	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Press freedom includes circulation; Strict interpretation of restrictions; Led to First Amendment.
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (AIR 1950 SC 129)	1950	Pre-censorship, Scope of Art 19(2)	Pre-censorship order invalid; Grounds wider than original Art 19(2).	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Strong stance against prior restraint; Reinforced strict interpretation of restrictions; Contributed to First Amendment.
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. UoI (AIR 1962 SC 305)	1962	Page limits, Price control, Economic constraints, Circulation	Newspaper (Price and Page) Act invalid; Restrictions directly impacted circulation/volume, not saved by 19(2).	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Freedom includes volume/circulation; Protection from economic/regulatory measures curtailing speech; Restricting means = restricting freedom.
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. UoI ((1972) 2 SCC 788)	1972	Newsprint policy, Page limits, Circulation, Growth restrictions	Newsprint policy restrictions invalid; Freedom is qualitative & quantitative; Effect on 19(1)(a) crucial.	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Reinforced Sakal; Robust protection against control via newsprint; Press freedom embodies public’s right.
Indian Express Newspapers v. UoI ((1985) 1 SCC 641)	1984	Import duty on newsprint, Economic burden	Duty not per se invalid, but govt must reconsider policy considering impact on press freedom.	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Press not immune from tax, but excessive/crippling burden unconstitutional; Judicial review of economic impact; Directed executive reconsideration.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955)	1962	Sedition (Sec 124A IPC), Validity	Sec 124A upheld but ‘read down’ to apply only to acts with intent/tendency to incite violence/disorder.	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Balancing free speech & security; Reading down to save statute; High threshold set for sedition (though application remains debated).
Shreya Singhal v. UoI ((2015) 5 SCC 1)	2015	Online speech, Sec 66A IT Act, Vagueness, Overbreadth	Sec 66A struck down as unconstitutional (vague, overbroad, not saved by 19(2)).	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Landmark protection for online speech; Rejection of vague/overbroad laws restricting speech; Importance of narrow tailoring.
Anuradha Bhasin v. UoI ((2020) 3 SCC 637)	2020	Internet shutdowns, Proportionality, Transparency	Indefinite internet suspension illegal; Orders must be necessary, proportionate, temporary, published.	19(1)(a), 19(1)(g)	Internet access linked to Art 19 rights; Strengthened proportionality & procedural safeguards against shutdowns; Emphasized judicial review.
Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. UoI (2023 SCC OnLine SC 366)	2023	Broadcast ban, National security claims, Sealed cover procedure	Broadcast ban quashed; National security requires justification; Sealed cover procedure criticized.	19(1)(a), 19(2)	Pushback against unsubstantiated security claims; Upholding natural justice against sealed covers; Need for transparency in restricting media freedom.

VI. The Contemporary Landscape: Press Freedom in Practice

A. Current Legal Standing and Application

The legal framework governing press freedom in India remains anchored in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(2), outlining the grounds for reasonable restrictions. This framework, as interpreted and evolved through decades of judicial pronouncements, theoretically provides robust protection. However, the practical application and the lived reality for journalists and media organizations present a complex and often challenging picture.

International press freedom indices, such as the World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), have consistently ranked India poorly in recent years, indicating a decline in the environment for journalism.²⁰ India ranked 142nd in 2020 and 2021, dropping to 150th in 2022, and further slipping to 161st out of 180 countries in 2023, placing it in the “very serious” category.³⁵ The 2024 index ranked India at 159th.⁷⁶ These rankings often cite factors such as violence against journalists, political partisanship in media, concentration of media ownership, and the use of restrictive laws as contributing factors.³⁵ Reports from organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) also highlight concerns regarding arrests, harassment, and legal threats faced by journalists.³⁵ Domestic bodies like the Editors Guild of India (EGI) have frequently raised alarms about specific incidents and broader trends perceived as attacks on press freedom.⁶⁰

The Indian government, however, has officially contested these international rankings, questioning their methodology, sample size, transparency, and weightage given to democratic fundamentals.⁶⁰ The government maintains its commitment to upholding freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and points to institutions like the Press Council of India as mechanisms for preserving press freedom.⁶⁰ This divergence in perception underscores the contested nature of the current press freedom landscape in India.

B. Impact of Recent Judicial Decisions and Legislative/Regulatory Changes

Recent judicial interventions have had significant implications, though their practical enforcement can be uneven. The Anuradha Bhasin ruling ⁴³ set important limits on internet shutdowns, yet shutdowns continue to be implemented by authorities, often citing law and order or preventing cheating in exams.⁴⁴ The Madhyamam Broadcasting decision ⁴⁹ provided a strong check on the opaque use of national security claims and sealed cover procedures to restrict media operations. The Shreya Singhal judgment ⁴² remains a bulwark against vague laws restricting online speech.

Legislative and regulatory changes, particularly concerning digital media, have become central to the contemporary debate. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, introduced a regulatory framework for digital news publishers and OTT platforms, requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and establishing a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism with government oversight.⁴⁴ Subsequent amendments, notably the 2023 rule empowering a government-established Fact Check Unit (FCU) to identify “fake or false or misleading” information related to the central government’s business, have faced significant legal challenges.⁷² Petitioners in the Kunal Kamra case argued these rules infringe Article 19(1)(a), lack clarity, create a chilling effect, and enable arbitrary censorship by making the government an arbiter of truth regarding its own affairs.⁷² The Bombay High Court delivered a split verdict, with a subsequent majority (2:1) finding the FCU rule unconstitutional, though the matter may proceed further.⁷² These rules represent a significant expansion of governmental power to regulate online content, raising concerns about potential misuse for censorship.⁴⁴

The enactment of three new criminal codes in 2023, replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act, effective from July 1, 2024, also carries implications for press freedom.⁵⁴

• Sedition Law Replacement: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, replaces Section 124A IPC (Sedition) with Section 152 BNS, titled ‘Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India’.⁴⁸ While the government claims to have abolished sedition ⁴⁸, critics argue Section 152 retains the core elements and potentially broadens its scope.⁴⁸ Section 152 penalizes acts that excite or attempt to excite “secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities,” or encourage “feelings of separatist activities”.⁴⁸ Terms like “subversive activities” and “separatist activities” lack clear definition and could be interpreted broadly, potentially encompassing speech critical of government policies or advocating for regional autonomy, arguably falling short of the Kedar Nath threshold of incitement to violence or public disorder.⁴⁸ The minimum punishment under Section 152 is also increased to seven years.⁷⁵ The vagueness raises concerns about its potential misuse to stifle dissent, similar to the criticisms leveled against Section 124A.⁴⁸
• Other BNS Provisions: Section 353 BNS deals with ‘Statements conducing to public mischief’, criminalizing the making or circulating of false information or rumours (including via electronic means) intended or likely to cause public fear, alarm, or incite offences against the State or public tranquility, or promote enmity between groups.⁸⁰ Section 196 BNS penalizes furnishing false information to a public servant.⁸⁰ These provisions, particularly concerning electronic communication and false information, could potentially be used against journalists or media platforms.
• Procedural and Evidentiary Changes: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (new CrPC) allows police to seek 15-day custody anytime within the first 40-60 days of remand, raising concerns about potential misuse during investigations against journalists.⁷⁵ The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (new Evidence Act) allows admissibility of electronic records, which, combined with concerns about data protection and past instances of alleged evidence tampering in cases involving activists and journalists (e.g., Bhima Koregaon, NewsClick), raises fears about the potential misuse of digital evidence.⁷⁵

C. Key Challenges Facing the Press

Beyond specific legal changes, several persistent challenges impact press freedom in India:

• Misuse of Laws and Chilling Effect: There is widespread concern about the instrumental use of various laws – including Sedition/BNS Sec 152, criminal defamation, the IT Act, and increasingly, the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – to target journalists, critics, and media organizations.¹⁰ The application of UAPA, an anti-terror law, to journalists based on funding sources or critical content represents a significant escalation, framing journalism as a potential national security threat and making bail extremely difficult, thereby intensifying the chilling effect.³⁸ Even if cases are eventually dismissed, the lengthy and arduous legal process itself acts as a deterrent.⁵⁰
• Surveillance and Privacy Concerns: Reports of government surveillance using spyware like Pegasus against journalists ³⁸, coupled with the seizure of electronic devices (laptops, phones) during investigations ³⁸, raise serious concerns about journalists’ privacy, the confidentiality of their sources, and their ability to operate without fear of state intrusion.⁴⁹ The lack of a comprehensive data protection law exacerbates these vulnerabilities.⁷⁵
• Safety and Security: Journalists, particularly those working outside major urban centers, reporting on sensitive issues like corruption or communal tensions, or belonging to minority groups, face significant risks of physical attacks, threats, intimidation, and harassment, both online and offline.²⁰ A culture of impunity, where perpetrators often face no consequences, further endangers media professionals.⁷⁶ While the central government has issued advisories to states on journalists’ safety ⁶⁰, concerns about effective protection persist.
• Economic Pressures: The financial sustainability of independent media remains a major challenge. Dwindling advertising revenues (especially for print), the influence of government advertising allocation policies, increasing concentration of media ownership, and the rise of ‘news deserts’ (areas with limited local news coverage) impact the media’s capacity to perform its watchdog role effectively.⁵
• Internet Shutdowns: Despite the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Anuradha Bhasin, India continues to witness frequent internet shutdowns imposed by authorities, often justified on grounds of maintaining law and order or preventing cheating.⁴³ These shutdowns severely disrupt the flow of information, hinder online journalism, and impact citizens’ right to know.
• Disinformation and Misinformation: The proliferation of false and misleading information online poses a challenge to the credibility of legitimate news sources and erodes public trust.²⁹ While combating disinformation is necessary, regulatory measures aimed at it can sometimes be overly broad or misused to target critical voices.⁷²

D. Role of the Press Council of India (PCI)

The Press Council of India (PCI) is a statutory, autonomous body established under the Press Council Act, 1978.²⁰ Its primary mandate is to preserve the freedom of the press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.²⁷ The PCI considers complaints filed ‘by the Press’ regarding curtailment of press freedom (including assaults on journalists) under Section 13 of the Act, and also complaints filed against the press for violations of journalistic ethics.⁵⁹ It can also take suo motu cognizance of issues concerning press freedom and standards.⁶⁰

The PCI has formulated Norms of Journalistic Conduct, emphasizing principles like accuracy, fairness, pre-publication verification, caution against defamatory writings, respect for privacy, and restraint in reporting on sensitive matters like communal issues.⁵⁹ It aims to maintain public trust by promoting professional ethics.⁵⁹

However, the PCI’s powers are primarily recommendatory; it acts more as a ‘moral watchdog’ than an enforcement body with punitive powers.¹⁶ Its effectiveness in robustly defending press freedom against governmental actions or legislative encroachments has sometimes been questioned.¹⁶ Notably, the PCI has publicly disagreed with and rejected the findings and rankings of international bodies like Reporters Without Borders concerning press freedom in India, citing methodological flaws.³⁵

VII. Future Horizons: Prospects, Challenges, and Debates

The future trajectory of press freedom under Article 19 in India is likely to be shaped by the interplay of several evolving factors, presenting both significant challenges and potential avenues for strengthening protections.

A. Digital Media Regulation and Online Censorship

The regulation of digital media remains a critical and contested frontier. The ongoing legal battles surrounding the IT Rules, 2021, and the government’s attempts to regulate online content, including through mechanisms like the Fact Check Unit, highlight the tension between combating harmful content (misinformation, hate speech) and preserving free expression online.⁴⁴ Future challenges will involve finding a regulatory balance that addresses legitimate concerns without enabling arbitrary censorship or unduly burdening online news platforms and intermediaries.⁷² Applying traditional media law principles, developed primarily for print and broadcast, to the dynamic and decentralized nature of the internet continues to pose legal and practical difficulties.⁵² The convergence of digital regulation, surveillance capabilities, and restrictive laws creates a complex environment where journalists face potential legal jeopardy from multiple directions simultaneously – content takedown requests under IT Rules, charges under BNS for online statements, and potentially even UAPA investigations related to funding or association.³⁸

B. National Security Imperatives vs. Freedom of Expression

The tension between national security concerns and freedom of expression is a perennial issue unlikely to diminish, particularly given India’s geopolitical context and internal security challenges.¹⁰ The future application of BNS Section 152, with its potentially vague terms like “subversive activities,” will be closely watched.⁴⁸ A key future challenge lies in establishing clearer legal standards and ensuring robust, independent judicial oversight to prevent the misuse of national security as a justification for suppressing dissent or critical reporting.⁴³ Continued vigilance against opaque procedures like the ‘sealed cover’ will be necessary.

C. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

The use of strategic lawsuits, particularly defamation cases, filed not with the genuine intent of seeking legal remedy but primarily to intimidate, silence, and exhaust the financial resources of journalists and media outlets, is a growing global concern that also affects India.⁸¹ These SLAPPs pose a significant threat to investigative journalism and critical reporting. Future debates may revolve around the need for specific anti-SLAPP legislation or judicial mechanisms in India, similar to those adopted or considered in other jurisdictions, to allow for early dismissal of such suits and potentially penalize filers.⁸¹

D. Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Disinformation, and Evolving Norms

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence presents both opportunities and challenges for the press. AI can aid in data analysis and research but also enables the creation of sophisticated deepfakes and disinformation campaigns at scale, making verification harder.⁸⁰ The ongoing struggle against the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation and disinformation will continue to test the credibility of traditional media and potentially fuel demands for further regulation.²⁹ Simultaneously, evolving societal norms regarding privacy, acceptable discourse, and the boundaries of offensive speech may influence public opinion and, indirectly, legal interpretations concerning restrictions based on decency, morality, or defamation.²⁹

E. Sustainability of Independent Media

The economic viability of independent media remains a critical underlying factor for press freedom.⁸² Addressing the challenges of digital transition, declining traditional revenue streams, media ownership concentration, and ensuring that diverse and critical voices can sustain themselves financially is crucial for maintaining a pluralistic media landscape capable of fulfilling its democratic role.²⁵ Without institutional strength and financial independence, legal protections alone may prove insufficient.

Ultimately, the future prospects for press freedom in India depend not only on judicial interpretation and legislative frameworks but critically on the resilience of media institutions, the development and adoption of effective counter-strategies (including legal defence funds, digital security measures, potential anti-SLAPP safeguards), and sustained advocacy from civil society, press bodies, and international organizations.²⁷ A multi-faceted approach involving legal action, institutional capacity building, technological adaptation, and collective vigilance appears necessary to navigate the complex challenges ahead.

VIII. Conclusion

A. Recapitulation of Key Findings

This report has analyzed the complex legal landscape surrounding freedom of the press under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Key findings include:

• Press freedom, though not explicitly mentioned, is firmly established as an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), encompassing rights like publication, circulation, the right to receive information, and the right to criticize.
• This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on specific grounds like sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
• Judicial interpretation has evolved significantly, initially adopting an expansive view of press freedom, followed by periods of legislative reaction (First Amendment, Emergency), consolidation, and adaptation to new challenges posed by economic factors, technology (broadcast, digital media), and heightened security concerns.
• Landmark judgments have clarified the scope of the right (including its operational and economic aspects) and the limits of restrictions, emphasizing principles like proportionality, narrow tailoring, and the need for justification, while also upholding certain restrictive laws (like sedition and criminal defamation) albeit with narrowing interpretations.
• The contemporary landscape is marked by concerns over the misuse of restrictive laws (including Sedition/BNS Sec 152, UAPA, defamation, IT Rules), threats to journalists’ safety and privacy, economic pressures on independent media, and the challenges of regulating the digital sphere without enabling censorship. The introduction of the new criminal codes (BNS, BNSS, BSA) presents further complexities and potential challenges.

B. Concluding Analysis on the State and Trajectory of Press Freedom under Article 19

The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, encompassing press freedom, remains a vital pillar of Indian democracy. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has often played a crucial role in interpreting this right expansively and pushing back against legislative or executive overreach. Landmark decisions affirming the importance of circulation, protecting against economic burdens, striking down vague online restrictions, and demanding proportionality in shutdowns stand testament to this.

However, the practical enjoyment of this freedom faces significant and arguably increasing challenges. The gap between judicially defined limits on restrictions (e.g., the high threshold for sedition) and their application on the ground persists, fostering a chilling effect. The invocation of national security, the use of stringent laws like UAPA against journalists, expansive digital regulation, and economic vulnerabilities create a difficult operating environment for independent media. While the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita removes the term “sedition,” the replacement provision (Section 152) contains ambiguities that may allow for continued or even expanded misuse against critical voices.

Currently, the balance appears precarious, with legal and extra-legal pressures potentially tilting it away from robust freedom towards greater restriction and self-censorship. The judiciary remains the primary constitutional arbiter, but its ability to provide timely and effective relief against determined executive or legislative action is not always guaranteed.

The future trajectory of press freedom in India under Article 19 is uncertain. It hinges on multiple factors: the judiciary’s continued commitment to rigorously scrutinizing restrictions based on proportionality and necessity; the manner in which new laws like the BNS and IT Rules are interpreted and applied; the development of effective safeguards against SLAPPs and surveillance; the resilience and financial sustainability of independent media outlets; and the strength of advocacy from civil society and press organizations. Sustained vigilance and concerted efforts from all stakeholders committed to democratic values are essential to ensure that the freedom of the press, so vital for India’s constitutional fabric, is not merely a textual promise but a lived reality.

IX. Bibliography/References

• Constitution of India. ¹
• Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. ³
• Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Repealed). ¹⁰
• Information Technology Act, 2000. ⁴²
• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (and amendments). ⁴⁴
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). ³⁸
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). ⁴⁸
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). ⁵⁴
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). ⁷⁵
• Press Council Act, 1978. ²⁰
• Press Council of India, Norms of Journalistic Conduct (2010). ⁵⁹
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). ⁶
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ⁹
• Case Law (Supreme Court of India – via Indian Kanoon, SCC Online references in snippets, SCObserver, Global Freedom of Expression, etc.):

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 ⁷⁰
• Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) SCC OnLine SC 956 ⁵³
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 ⁴³
• Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377 ⁵²
• Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214 ⁴⁸
• Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka (2007) 5 SCC 11 ⁵²
• Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788 ³
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615 ³
• Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129 ³
• Chambara soy v. Union of India (2007) ³ (Specific citation needed)
• Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1951 SC 118
• Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 ³⁶ (Also referred to as Indian Express Newspapers)
• Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors (1986) 1 SCC 133 ³⁷
• Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 554 ¹⁴
• Hindustan Times v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 591 ¹⁴
• In Re: Harijai Singh (1996) 6 SCC 466 ³⁷
• K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 780 ¹⁶
• Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 4 SCC 1 ⁶⁵
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955 ¹⁰
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 ⁶⁶
• Laxmi Khandsari v. State of UP (1981) 2 SCC 600 ⁴⁶
• Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637 ¹⁴
• Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746 ⁵²
• Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366 ⁴⁹
• Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi (2019) ³⁷ (Specific citation needed)
• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1 ⁴¹
• Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 1 ³
• Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620 ⁴⁶
• Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd v. Proprietors Of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt Ltd (1988) 4 SCC 592 ³⁷
• R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 ⁶⁶
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124 ³
• Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603 ¹⁶
• Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305 ¹⁸
• Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161 ⁶
• S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (Pending) ⁴⁷
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 ⁴²
• Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 ³⁹
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574 ⁴²
• State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329 ⁴⁶
• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 ⁶
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 ⁴⁵
• Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (1995) 5 SCC 139 ¹⁴
• Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) 2 SCC 510 ²⁸
• Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021) SCC OnLine SC 414 ³⁸
• Other Sources (via Snippets):

• Academic Journals & Articles (e.g., ShodhKosh, IJLRA, IJPR, IJLMH, Socio Legal Review, TandF Online, Oxford Research Encyclopedias, NLIU Law Review, etc.) ⁶
• Reports & Websites (e.g., ORF Online, Vidhi Legal Policy, Nyaaya, HRW, Freedom House, CPJ, RSF, Amnesty International, IFJ, CIVICUS Monitor, Article 19 Org, Geopolitical Monitor, Public Media Alliance, Media Legal Defence Initiative, Alt Law Forum, etc.) ¹⁵
• Government Websites & Documents (e.g., MEA, Legislative Dept, India Code, MCRHRDI, Sansad.in, PIB) ¹
• Legal Databases/Commentaries (Manupatra references) ⁴
• News Articles/Blogs (e.g., iPLEADERS, EPW Engage, Vintage Legal, Juris Centre, The Mooknayak, Bar and Bench, LiveLaw, The Print, The Hindu, Foreign Policy, Washington Post, Telegraph, Forbes India) ¹⁴

Works cited

1. Constitution of India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15240/1/constitution_of_india.pdf
2. PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/images/pdf1/part3.pdf
3. Article 19 in Constitution of India – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
4. Constitutional Law of India – Chapter 8 – Right to freedom – Student Manupatra, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-8.htm
5. fundamental freedoms under article 19 of the constitution of india – MCRHRDI, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/91fc/coursematerial/pcci/Part3.pdf
6. A Bird’s Eye View of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/A-Bird-s-Eye-View-of-the-Right-to-Freedom-of-Speech-and-Expression-in-India
7. Freedom of the Press – International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijlmh.com/paper/freedom-of-the-press/
8. ANALYZING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND MEDIA SPEECH THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF INDIA – Granthaalayah Publications, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.granthaalayahpublication.org/Arts-Journal/ShodhKosh/article/download/2616/2350/16998
9. “An Analysis of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression” – Pen Acclaims, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Pujarini-Behera.pdf
10. Sedition Law Vis-A-Vis Freedom of Speech and Expression in The Current Scenario: A Critical Study, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.seejph.com/index.php/seejph/article/download/2880/1923/4250
11. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PRESS AND ARTICLE 19 – IJNRD, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2306303.pdf
12. Press Freedom in India: A Complete Analysis – ijrpr, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V5ISSUE8/IJRPR32014.pdf
13. Challenges to Press Freedom in India | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-974
14. “Law Relating to Right of Privacy and Freedom of Press in India – An Analysis” – Pen Acclaims, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Shefali-Parashar.pdf
15. SEDITION LAWS & THE DEATH OF FREE SPEECH IN INDIA, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://altlawforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Sedition-Laws-the-Death-of-Free-Speech-in-India.pdf
16. A STUDY ON FREEDOM OF PRESS IN INDIA WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 19, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.jusscriptumlaw.com/post/a-study-on-freedom-of-press-in-india-with-reference-to-article-19
17. View of ANALYZING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND MEDIA SPEECH THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF INDIA – Granthaalayah Publications, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.granthaalayahpublication.org/Arts-Journal/ShodhKosh/article/view/2616/2350
18. INDIA’S MEDIA FREEDOM: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE – International Journal for Research Publication and Seminar, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://jrps.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/download/1244/1205/2410
19. BALANCING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND MEDIA TRIAL: NEED OF THE HOUR Ankit Ujjwal* ABSTRACT In the early years of the Constitution, the – indian journal of legal review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijlr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/V207.pdf
20. Current challenges to media freedom in India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://cfom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Student-Comp-2016-17-Final-India-case-study.pdf
21. FREEDOM OF PRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT: AN APPRAISAL – CORE, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144511546.pdf
22. Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras (1950) – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/romesh-thappar-vs-state-of-madras-1950/
23. W.N. Srinivasa Bhat And Anr. vs The State Of Madras And Anr. on 2 November, 1950 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412643/
24. (March 2024). ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN WIDENING THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijeponline.com/index.php/journal/article/download/861/751/760
25. MEDIA: A TENACIOUS RIGHT OR A REFORMATIVE RISK – The Law Brigade Publishers (India), accessed on April 16, 2025, https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Nitin-Parth.pdf
26. Press Freedom in India – Drishti IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/press-freedom-in-india
27. Freedom of the Press vs. Right to Reputation – PMF IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.pmfias.com/freedom-of-the-press-vs-right-to-reputation/
28. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-19-indian-constitution/
29. Article 19: Mapping the Free Speech Debate in India | Economic and Political Weekly, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.epw.in/engage/debate-kits/article-19-mapping-free-speech-debate-india
30. www.orfonline.org, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/posts/pdf/20230608214229.pdf
31. Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of Speech, etc. – Constitution of India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-19-protection-of-certain-rights-regarding-freedom-of-speech-etc/
32. THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1951 – National Portal of India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/amendments/constitution-india-first-amendment-act-1951
33. right to freedom under article 19 of the constitution of india and new challenges by: deepak r. tongli – ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380970997_RIGHT_TO_FREEDOM_UNDER_ARTICLE_19_OF_THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_INDIA_AND_NEW_CHALLENGES_BY_DEEPAK_R_TONGLI
34. exploring the justification for restricting freedom of speech in democratic societies. by: afsar ahamed.n – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuurl=exploring-the-justification-for-restricting-freedom-of-speech-in-democratic-societies-by-afsar-ahamed-n-
35. Freedom of the press in India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_India
36. freedom of press – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=freedom%20of%20press
37. freedom of press doctypes – Supreme Court of India – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=freedom%20of%20press+doctypes:supremecourt
38. Article 19: Prescription, procedure and the press – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/article-19-prescription-procedure-and-the-press/
39. Rujira Banerjee vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 October, 2023 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98984679/
40. Indulal K. Yagnik vs State on 18 November, 1959 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1347293/
41. What are the Rights of Press in India? – Nyaaya, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nyaaya.org/guest-blog/what-are-the-rights-of-press-in-india/
42. Right to Free Speech and Censorship: A Jurisprudential Analysis – Vintage Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.vintagelegalvl.com/post/right-to-free-speech-and-censorship-a-jurisprudential-analysis
43. Bhasin v. Union of India – Global … – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/bhasin-v-union-of-india/
44. India Press Freedom at Stake amid Growing ‘Narrative Management’ | Geopolitical Monitor, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/india-press-freedom-at-stake-amid-growing-narrative-management/
45. Is State Curbing Free Speech through S. 499 IPC? – Manupatra Academy, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/Is_State_Curbing_Free_Speech_through_S_499_IPC
46. Full article: Silenced voices: unravelling India’s dissent crisis through historical and contemporary analysis of free speech and suppression, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600834.2023.2249780
47. BEYOND THE COLONIAL SHADOW: SEDITION LAWS AND THE RIGHT TO DISSENT BY – INDRAKSHI SAHA, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuur=3579
48. Balancing Free Speech And National Security: A Critical Analysis Of Section 152 Of The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita And Section 124-A Of The IPC – LiveLaw, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/balancing-free-speech-national-security-critical-analysis-section-152-bhartiya-nyaya-sanhita-section-124-a-ipc-259465
49. Supreme Court Review 2023: Freedom of Speech – Supreme Court …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/supreme-court-review-2023-freedom-of-speech/
50. Stifling Dissent: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/25/stifling-dissent/criminalization-peaceful-expression-india
51. DEFAMATION LAWS IN INDIA: BALANCING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PROTECTION OF REPUTATION – LegalOnus, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legalonus.com/defamation-laws-in-india-balancing-freedom-of-speech-and-protection-of-reputation-2/
52. Article 19(2) and ‘Public Order’, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/article-192-and-public-order/
53. article 19(2) – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=article%2019%282%29
54. India: Freedom on the Net 2024 Country Report, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-net/2024
55. cites: 594709 – Supreme Court of India – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=cites%3A%20594709&pagenum=1
56. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 28 PETITIONER: KEDAR NATH SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR DATE OF JUDG, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/4007.pdf
57. Should India Abolish Sedition Law? – Juris Centre, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://juriscentre.com/2021/06/09/should-india-abolish-sedition-law/
58. India: Media Freedom Under Threat | Human Rights Watch, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/03/india-media-freedom-under-threat
59. norms of journalistic conduct – Press Council of India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/PDF/Norms2010.pdf
60. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3798 TO BE ANSWERED ON 21-12-202, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/177/AU3798.pdf?source=pqals
61. The position of sedition laws and the freedom of speech and expression in India – National Journal of Advanced Research, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://thestudiesjournal.com/assets/archives/2022/vol8issue1/8-1-15-816.pdf
62. LAW OF SEDITION AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE – International Journal of Research Culture Society, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijrcs.org/wp-content/uploads/IJRCS201708008.pdf
63. Jurisprudence of Convenience: On the Indian Supreme Court’s Guidance-Laden Approach to Answer Hard Questions of Free Speech Law – Verfassungsblog, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/nipun-malhotra-free-speech/
64. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Decolonising or Reinforcing Colonial Ideas?, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.nls.ac.in/blog/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-decolonising-or-reinforcing-colonial-ideas/
65. “Balancing” Away Free Speech: Some Thoughts – Socio Legal Review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.sociolegalreview.com/post/balancing-away-free-speech-some-thoughts
66. Public Eye vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2024 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2280422/
67. UNATTAINABLE BALANCES: THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN – NLIU Law Review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Volume-IX-Issue-II-113-136.pdf
68. The 16th September Order and the Supreme Court of Convenience (or why separation of powers is like love) – Constitutional Law and Philosophy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/the-16th-september-order-and-the-supreme-court-of-convenience-or-why-separation-of-powers-is-like-love/
69. GLOBAL CENSORSHIP | Yale Law School, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/isp/documents/a2k_global-censorship_2.pdf
70. Thellur M. Dharmarajan, Editor, … vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By … on 10 November, 1976, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893616/
71. Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
72. Kunal Kamra v. Union of India – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/kunal-kamra-v-union-of-india/
73. Kunal Kamra vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2024 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76449328/
74. SECTION: PIL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO., accessed on April 16, 2025, https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2021-07/0318a547-aaa5-420f-82db-f45cc0febb29/Common_Cause_challenge_to_Section_124A.pdf
75. India: Authorities must immediately repeal repressive new criminal laws, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/07/the-laws-in-their-current-form-will-be-used-as-pretext-to-violate-the-rights-of-all-those-who-dare-speak-truth-to-power/
76. Murder, Impunity, and the Crumbling Pillars of Democracy: Press Freedom in India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.themooknayak.com/india/murder-impunity-and-the-crumbling-pillars-of-democracy-press-freedom-in-india
77. India: Activists and journalists continued to be targeted around elections despite UN Human Rights Committee scrutiny – Civicus Monitor, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/india-activists-and-journalists-continued-to-be-targeted-around-elections-despite-un-human-rights-committee-scrutiny/
78. India Archives – Committee to Protect Journalists, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://cpj.org/asia/india/
79. India Archives – Committee to Protect Journalists, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://cpj.org/features-and-analysis/asia/india/
80. Countering Misinformation; Provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/countering-misinformation-provisions-under-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023
81. Europe: Press Freedom Report 2024 warns about persistent threats to media freedom – IFJ, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/europe-europe-press-freedom-report-2024-warns-about-persistent-threats-to-media-freedom
82. WPFD: Public media and press freedom in 2024, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/wpfd-public-media-and-press-freedom-in-2024/
83. Attacks on Media Freedom: Weaponising the Law, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://medialegalattacks.com/
84. Freedom of the press in 2025 | DW Observatory, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://dig.watch/topics/freedom-of-the-press
85. Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral
86. Constitution of India – S3waas, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s380537a945c7aaa788ccfcdf1b99b5d8f/uploads/2024/07/20240716890312078.pdf
87. Constitution of India – Legislative Department, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
88. Constitution of India | Legislative Department, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legislative.gov.in/document-category/constitution-of-india/
89. Mr. Mahesh Bhatt And Kasturi And Sons vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 7 February, 2008 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327029/
90. India: Stop repression of media and political opposition during elections – ARTICLE 19, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.article19.org/resources/india-stop-repression-of-media-and-political-opposition-during-elections/