Author: Kshitika Ajgaonkar
College: Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
Linkedin: https://acesse.one/7zzflem
ABSTRACT
In the world’s largest democracy, the ink that once flowed as the lifeblood of accountability now risks becoming the currency of conformity. Press Freedom in India stands tall as a debatable topic in the current times, while being an integral facet of freedom of speech and expression which heads towards precarious crossroads.
India’s fall to 157th out of 180 nations in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index, a “very serious” category, according to Reporters Without Borders is not an abstract statistic, it is the sum of many small legal compromises. This piece argues that the law on paper remains robust, but its enforcement has become selective, turning ink into a currency traded for proximity to power.
A fourth pillar of democracy, in the largest democracy, with its crippling foundations tearing walls should make every citizen stop and think about the impact of the press and how it has influenced our nation. Going forward this article is a legal dissension of press freedom, freedom of speech as a concept in our nation.
TO THE POINT
Nowhere does the Indian Constitution use the words “freedom of the press.” Instead, courts have read press freedom into the broader freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), a judicial graft that has proven to be both a strength and a vulnerability. It is a strength because it ties press liberty to the fundamental rights, invoking strict scrutiny whenever it is curtailed. It is a vulnerability because press freedom carries no independent, textually dedicated protection it can be diluted the moment “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) (sovereignty, security of the state, public order, decency, defamation, contempt of court) are stretched by legislative or executive interpretation.
Three statutory pillars complete the picture. First, the Press Council Act, 1978, which created the Press Council of India (PCI) as a quasi-judicial watchdog empowered only to “warn, admonish, or censure”, a toothless trio of powers with no capacity to fine, suspend, or prosecute erring publications or, more importantly, erring governments that harass journalists. Second, the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023, which replaced the 1867 law and simplified registration through a single online portal, but also armed the District Magistrate with wide discretion to deny or cancel registration to periodicals for reasons including prior conviction under any law, a phrase broad enough to sweep in journalists booked under preventive-detention or anti-terror statutes for their reporting. Third, a constellation of “special” laws, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the colonial sedition provision (now substantially reincarnated as Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Information Technology Act’s takedown provisions, and state-level public safety statutes, that are regularly invoked against reporters, often without securing a single conviction, functioning instead as instruments of prolonged pre trial punishment.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The debate turns on several recurring doctrinal terms. Prior restraint refers to any restriction imposed before publication, historically viewed with the deepest judicial suspicion because it forecloses the very possibility of a story reaching the public. Chilling effect describes the self-censorship that spreads through a newsroom when the cost of publishing legal notices, raids, or arrest, outweighs the perceived benefit of a story, even when the story is factually sound. Doctrine of proportionality requires that any restriction on a fundamental right be the least restrictive means of achieving a legitimate state aim, a test increasingly cited in litigation over internet shutdowns and gag orders. Sub judice and contempt of court remain potent tools against reportage on ongoing litigation. Vicarious criminal liability under press laws can implicate editors and publishers for content authored by others. Finally, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), though not a term of art in Indian statute, are increasingly used by commentators to describe defamation suits filed by corporations and politicians less to win in court and more to exhaust a journalist’s time, money, and resolve.
THE PROOF
The erosion is visible in patterns, not isolated events. Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 index recorded India’s steepest fall in years from 151st to 157th attributing the decline to violence against journalists, concentrated media ownership, and outlets whose editorial line tracks political alignment rather than public interest. The organisation noted that, globally, the “legal” indicator of press freedom fell furthest of all measured categories, a trend it linked to the criminalisation of journalism through the misuse of national-security and emergency legislation a description that fits India’s pattern of UAPA cases against reporters covering conflict zones, protests, or corruption.
Consider a few illustrative, real patterns rather than a single anecdote: journalists covering communal violence or farmer protests have had their equipment seized under public-order provisions before any FIR was even framed against them; digital news portals have received sudden blocking orders under IT Rules with no prior notice or hearing, only to challenge the order in writ jurisdiction months later; and small-town editors, wholly dependent on government advertisement revenue, have quietly dropped critical stories after their outlet’s ad allocation mysteriously dried up a form of economic censorship that never shows up in any FIR register but shows up starkly in a masthead’s editorial choices. On the other side of the ledger sit genuine promotions of the freedom: courts routinely quashing FIRs against journalists for “creating unnecessary controversy,” suo motu cognizance by High Courts when reporters are assaulted while covering public events, and the judiciary’s repeated insistence even while denying specific relief that a free press remains indispensable to a functioning republic.
CASE LAWS
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) — The Supreme Court struck down a Madras government ban on the magazine Cross Roads, holding that restrictions on circulation must relate strictly to the security of the state, not a loosely defined “public order.” The judgment prompted the First Constitutional Amendment, which added “public order” as a distinct ground under Article 19(2).
2. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1962) — The Court invalidated the Newspaper Order, which sought to regulate the number of pages a newspaper could carry relative to its price, holding that the state cannot restrict circulation indirectly through economic regulation when it could not do so directly through censorship.
3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973) — The Court struck down the Newsprint Control Order that capped the pages a newspaper could publish, reasoning that a restriction on newsprint is effectively a restriction on the volume of circulation and readership, and therefore a restriction on the freedom of the press itself.
4. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) — The Court held that customs duty on newsprint, if excessive, could unconstitutionally burden the press, and laid down that the freedom of the press occupies a preferred position warranting heightened judicial scrutiny of any fiscal or regulatory measure that could indirectly stifle it.
5. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) — The Court balanced press freedom against the right to privacy, holding that the press is generally free to publish what is part of the public record, but subject to exceptions for private facts unless voluntarily invited into public controversy a precedent still cited in privacy-versus-publication disputes.
6. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — Arising from the prolonged internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370, a journalist-petitioner argued the blackout crippled her newspaper’s operation. The Court held that indefinite internet suspensions are impermissible, that all suspension orders must be published and are subject to judicial review, and that any restriction must meet the tests of necessity and proportionality even as it declined to grant the petitioners immediate relief, citing insufficient evidence of an ongoing “chilling effect” at that stage.
CONCLUSION
India’s press freedom framework is a study in contradiction: robust constitutional rhetoric sitting atop a patchwork of statutes that leave wide executive discretion untouched. The Press Council Act gives the watchdog no teeth; the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023 modernised registration but preserved discretionary cancellation powers, and overlapping security legislation lets process itself become punishment, since prolonged incarceration pending trial can silence a reporter as effectively as a formal conviction never could. The judiciary has, time and again, been press freedom’s most reliable guardian from Romesh Thappar to Anuradha Bhasin but courts can only adjudicate the cases that reach them, and a chilled newsroom rarely litigates its own silence. Genuine reform would require narrowing “public order” and “security of state” to their constitutionally intended scope, empowering the Press Council with binding remedial authority, mandating time bound judicial review of every takedown and shutdown order, and insulating small and regional media from advertisement-based economic coercion. Until then, the price of ink in India will keep being set not by readers or by law, but by proximity to power.
Q1. Does the Indian Constitution explicitly guarantee freedom of the press?
No. There is no standalone textual guarantee. Courts have consistently read press freedom into the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), subject to the reasonable restrictions listed in Article 19(2).
Q2. What powers does the Press Council of India actually have?
Under the Press Council Act, 1978, the PCI can inquire into complaints against or by the press and issue a warning, admonition, or censure. It cannot impose fines, suspend a publication, or independently prosecute anyone — its powers are advisory and reputational, not coercive.
Q3. What changed with the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023?
It replaced the 1867 colonial law, introduced a single online registration portal, and streamlined title allotment. Critics note it also retains, and in places widens, discretionary powers for authorities to refuse or cancel registration.
Q4. Why is Article 19(2) considered both a shield and a loophole?
It legitimately allows the state to restrict speech for narrow ends like sovereignty and public order. The loophole lies in the elasticity of terms like “public order” and “decency,” which have historically been stretched by executive authorities well beyond the scope courts originally intended.
Q5. Is sedition still used against journalists in India?
The colonial sedition provision (Section 124A IPC) has been substantially replaced by Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Rights groups argue its language is broad enough to replicate many of the concerns raised against the old sedition law.
Q6. How does India’s global press freedom ranking reflect these legal issues?
The 2026 World Press Freedom Index placed India 157th of 180 countries, in the “very serious” category, with Reporters Without Borders specifically citing the misuse of legal and national-security instruments as a driver of the global and Indian decline in the index’s legal-environment score.
REFERENCE LINKS
Reporters Without Borders — 2026 RSF Index:https://rsf.org/en/2026-rsf-index-press-freedom-25-year-low
The Wire — “India is 157th Out of 180 Countries on RSF’s 2026 World Press Freedom Index”:https://m.thewire.in/article/media/india-is-157th-out-of-180-countries-on-rsfs-2026-world-press-freedom-index
The News Minute — “India slips to 157 in World Press Freedom Index 2026”: https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/india-slips-to-157-in-world-press-freedom-index-2026
Scroll.in — “India falls to 157th rank out of 180 countries”:https://scroll.in/latest/1092488/india-ranks-157-out-of-180-countries-in-2026-world-press-freedom-index
GKToday — “India Ranks 157 in Press Freedom Index”:https://www.gktoday.in/india-ranks-157-in-press-freedom-index/
