The press has often been described as the “fourth pillar of democracy.” Its role in informing citizens, scrutinizing government action, and shaping public debate makes it indispensable in a democratic society. In India, the freedom of the press does not find explicit mention in the Constitution. Yet, over the decades, the Supreme Court and High Courts have firmly recognized it as part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). At the same time, this freedom is not absolute. The Constitution permits restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, public order, morality, and other considerations. The law of press freedom in India, therefore, is a story of balancing liberty with responsibility, expression with restraint.
Constitutional Basis of Press Freedom
When the Constitution came into force in 1950, it did not explicitly state that the press had a separate right to freedom. The Constituent Assembly debated this omission but ultimately relied on Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The framers believed that the press needed no special mention since its freedom was implicit in that guarantee.
The Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) was among the first to affirm that freedom of the press is part of Article 19(1)(a). Striking down a state order banning a magazine, the Court held that liberty of the press is essential for political liberty. Soon after, in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950), it invalidated pre-censorship orders on a newspaper, reiterating that prior restraint on publication is incompatible with free expression.
These early judgments set the tone: the press is not a privileged entity but enjoys the same freedom as all citizens, exercised through Article 19(1)(a).
Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2)
The freedom under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). These include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to offence.
For the press, these restrictions have been tested in various contexts. During the Emergency (1975–77), censorship orders were justified on grounds of security and public order. Courts have also upheld restrictions where publications interfered with ongoing trials, defamed individuals, or incited violence.
The principle is that freedom of the press is essential but not unfettered. The challenge lies in ensuring that restrictions remain reasonable and are not used to stifle criticism.
The Press and the Emergency Era
The darkest chapter for press freedom in India was during the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975. Censorship was imposed, dissenting newspapers were shut down, and journalists were jailed. The Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) failed to protect liberty, holding that fundamental rights could be suspended.
This period remains a reminder of how fragile press freedom can be in times of political upheaval. It also shaped later jurisprudence, with courts becoming more assertive in protecting the press post-Emergency.
Landmark Judicial Decisions
Several judgments have expanded and clarified press freedom:
- Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973): The Supreme Court struck down government restrictions on the import of newsprint, holding that controlling the medium indirectly curtails free expression. The Court emphasized that freedom of the press includes the freedom of circulation.
- Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985): The Court reiterated that freedom of the press is part of Article 19(1)(a) and struck down excessive taxation on newspapers, recognizing economic independence as crucial to press liberty.
- Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962): The Court invalidated government attempts to regulate the number of pages newspapers could publish, affirming that state policy cannot curtail editorial discretion.
- Prabha Dutt v. Union of India (1982): The Court held that journalists had a right to interview prisoners, underscoring the press’s role in conveying information of public interest.
These cases collectively illustrate how the judiciary has interpreted freedom expansively, protecting not just publication but also access to information and circulation.
Press Freedom and Criminal Law
Indian criminal laws have often been used against journalists. Defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, sedition (now under review after colonial Section 124A IPC was widely criticized), and contempt of court are frequent grounds.
While defamation laws protect reputation, critics argue they are misused to silence criticism. Criminal contempt proceedings have also sparked debate, as in Arundhati Roy, In Re (2002), where the Court punished the writer for comments against the judiciary.
The balance here is delicate: protecting institutions while ensuring criticism of those institutions is not muzzled.
The Digital Era and New Challenges
With the advent of digital media, the meaning of “press” has expanded. Blogs, online portals, and social media influencers often play the role once reserved for newspapers. This has democratized expression but also created challenges of misinformation, fake news, and online harassment.
The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online speech, holding it unconstitutional for being vague and chilling free expression. The judgment was hailed as a major victory for digital rights.
At the same time, the government has introduced rules regulating digital news platforms and social media, raising concerns of excessive control. Press freedom debates are no longer about newsprint but about algorithms, digital surveillance, and online censorship.
Freedom of the Press and Democracy
The importance of the press lies not in serving as a mouthpiece of the government but in questioning it. The Supreme Court has often called the press the “watchdog of democracy.” Without it, corruption, abuse of power, and injustice would remain hidden.
Yet, the press itself is not free from bias. Concentration of media ownership, corporate influence, and “paid news” have weakened its credibility. Courts have noted these concerns, but reform largely depends on ethical journalism and self-regulation.
Conclusion
Freedom of the press in India is both robust and vulnerable. It is robust because courts have consistently read it into Article 19(1)(a), striking down attempts at excessive control. It is vulnerable because governments, through laws and administrative pressure, continue to test its limits.