Author: Triasha Mishra, Adamas University
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/triasha-mishra-3a94a4303?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
TO THE POINT
Even in democracies, press freedom has been seriously threatened in recent years as governments have used political clout and legal means to stifle independent reporting. Journalists in the US have experienced legal pressure and harassment, particularly during the Trump administration’s “fake news” campaign. A prime example of how legal intimidation can stifle dissent is the Philippines, where Nobel laureate Maria Ressa was found guilty under cyber libel laws. While Hungary and Poland have strengthened state control over media and limited independent outlets, Turkey has imprisoned hundreds of journalists under anti-terror laws. Israel has also come under fire for restricting press access and holding reporters while they are covering conflicts. These trends point to a concerning worldwide trend: the deterioration of press freedom in democracies via both legal and illegal means.
ABSTRACT
A key component of democratic governance, freedom of the press is necessary to guarantee accountability, openness, and the unrestricted dissemination of information. But even in democracies, this freedom has been increasingly threatened in recent years. Governments all over the world are using political and legal means to control narratives, stifle dissent, and suppress independent journalism. Serious concerns have been raised in the US by the increase in anti-media rhetoric and legal harassment of journalists. As evidenced by Nobel laureate Maria Ressa’s conviction, nations such as the Philippines have employed cyber libel laws to silence dissenting opinions. More than 100 journalists have been imprisoned by Turkey under the pretext of national security, and Hungary and Poland have successfully subjugated editorial independence by bringing public media under state control.Israel has also come under fire for restricting access to journalists and holding media workers hostage during wartime. These patterns point to a worldwide reversal in press freedom, with even democratic governments using censorship, surveillance, and legislation as weapons to weaken the media’s watchdog function. This abstract explores the political strategies and legal frameworks that have contributed to this decline, posing pressing concerns about the 21st-century prospects of democratic accountability and free speech.
LEGAL JARGON
Despite being a fundamental component of democratic governance, press freedom is being restricted more and more through legal means that appear legitimate. Although press freedom is protected by constitutional provisions such as Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, governments frequently impose reasonable restrictions on the basis of general grounds like public order or national security. As a result, journalists are increasingly self-censoring in order to prevent political or legal fallout. To suppress dissent, laws such as criminal defamation, anti-terror statutes (like India’s UAPA), and sedition are commonly used as weapons. Concerns regarding the degradation of natural justice, due process, and constitutional morality are raised by the abuse of such laws. The public’s right to know, which is essential to any functioning democracy, is in danger when the rule of law is twisted to suit majoritarian or executive interests. This undermines the media’s watchdog role.
PROOF
nternational rankings and documented incidents demonstrate the deterioration of press freedom in democracies. Reporters Without Borders’ 2024 World Press Freedom Index places India at number 159 out of 180 nations, indicating a rise in anti-journalist sentiment. Using accusations of sedition and anti-national activity, Indian authorities have raided independent news outlets like NewsClick and applied the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against journalists like Siddique Kappan in recent years. Similar to this, the Trump administration’s escalation of anti-media rhetoric in the US resulted in a spike in threats against reporters and charges of “fake news” in an effort to undermine critical reporting.In Hungary and Poland, governments have detained public broadcasters and placed legal restrictions on independent media, while in Turkey, more than 150 journalists have been imprisoned under nebulously worded anti-terror laws. Another example of how legal systems are being abused to stifle the press is the conviction of Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa in the Philippines under cyber libel laws. These instances demonstrate how authoritarian methods are being used more frequently by democracies to regulate the media, undermining international pledges to freedom of expression and constitutional safeguards.
CASE LAWS
State of Madras v. Romesh Thappar (1950)• Reference: AIR 1950 SC 124
• Significance: According to Article 19(1)(a), the Supreme Court ruled that press freedom is a component of freedom of speech and expression.• Quotation: “Public education, which is so vital to the smooth operation of the democratic process, cannot exist without free political discussion
State of Delhi v. Brij Bhushan (1950)• Reference: AIR 1950 SC 129
• Held: It was decided that a newspaper’s pre-censorship was unconstitutional.• Significance: Reaffirmed that press restrictions in the past are an infringement on free expression.
Union of India v. Indian Express Newspapers (1985)• Citation: AIR 1986 SC 515
• Significance: Reaffirmed that any restrictions must be carefully considered and that press freedom is an essential component of democracy.• Observation: “Freedom of the press is the heart of social and political intercourse.”
4.Union of India v. Shreya Singhal (2015)• Reference: AIR 2015 SC 152 • Question: Is Section 66A of the IT Act constitutional?• Held: Found to be overly general and ambiguous, infringing on the right to free speech.• Relevance: Significant in light of online press and digital censorship.
CONCLUSION
Press freedom is essential to a functioning democracy and goes beyond just being a constitutional right. But a troubling global trend reveals that even democratic governments are using administrative and legal means more frequently to stifle dissent and manipulate narratives. A transition from democratic tolerance to authoritarian intolerance is reflected in the use of ambiguous laws like defamation, anti-terror statutes, and sedition to harass journalists. Just as the Pentagon Papers case in the United States and Handyside v. UK have done globally, case laws like Romesh Thappar and Indian Express v. Union of India have long maintained the sanctity of press freedom in India.Yet, the gap between constitutional guarantees and ground realities is widening. The chilling effect on media is palpable, and the public’s right to know is being undermined in the name of national security or public order. Democracies must urgently revisit and reinforce their commitment to free press, not only through judicial vigilance but also via legislative reforms and executive restraint.
FAQS
In India, is press freedom a fundamental right?
Indeed. Although “freedom of the press” is not stated specifically in the Indian Constitution, it is implied by Article 19(1)(a), which protects the right to free speech and expression. In few landmark cases including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court has maintained this interpretation.
What legal limitations exist in India regarding press freedom?
According to Article 19(2), the press may be subject to reasonable restrictions if doing so serves the interests of public order, sovereignty, security, morality, decency, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to crime.
What is the “chilling effect” in press freedom?
It refers to the deterrent impact of legal threats, surveillance, or prosecution on journalists, causing them to self-censor and avoid reporting sensitive or controversial issues.
Can a democracy function without a free press?
No. A free press is essential for a transparent, accountable, and informed democracy. It ensures checks on government power, exposes corruption, and enables citizen participation in public life.
What legal reforms are needed to protect press freedom?
• Repeal or reform colonial-era laws like sedition (IPC 124A).
• Narrow the scope of defamation and cybercrime laws.
• Ensure independence of media regulatory bodies.
• Enact laws to protect journalists from harassment and arbitrary detention.
