A raised fist for press freedom

NEW DELHI: Last week, the Supreme Court lifted the telecast ban on a Malayalam TV channel while coming down hard on the government for arbitrarily silencing voices in the media that speak ‘truth to power’ by labelling them as anti-establishment, citing national security considerations. The apex court was also critical about the State’s unguided, and more specifically ‘ad-hoc’ usage of sealed covers in the court of law, with an intent to deny citizens their right to personal liberty, life and profession.

An SC bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud observed in a 134-page judgement that an independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic. It went on to add that a homogenised view on issues ranging from economic polity to political ideologies will be dangerous for democracy.

A few strong points have emerged from this recent episode. The government had put forth its perspective that it could investigate or collect intelligence on citizens, but later claim blanket immunity from disclosure in open court. The SC bench had reminded the government that relevant material needs to be disclosed to the affected parties, while redacting sensitive portions to ensure that the right of appeal can be exercised fairly. It categorically stated that the reports of such intelligence agencies had a deep impact on an individual’s or an entity’s life.

The CJI also called out the assumption that all such reports are confidential in nature. Interestingly, the court’s examination of government records revealed that the ban on the media outlet was based on conclusions that it was linked to the Jamaat-e-Islami, which was absolved of any terror activities back in 1994 itself.

The Home Ministry’s denial of security clearance to the media outlet had also come under fire from the SC. Having said that, a few experts in the legal fraternity have also opined that the SC should desist from relying on individual judges or particular cases to frame a law. A standalone bench to examine the implications of all free speech-related judgments.

Nonetheless, the latest development was hailed by political observers as a shot in the arm for the protection of free speech and media rights in India, which are enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution. Legal experts were especially upbeat about how the court has categorically refused to accept sealed covers from the government in the future. Why this bodes well for the delivery of justice is because administrations in power have often abused this system for its own gain during the course of several critical cases.

What many veterans in the news industry collectively felt was that a majority of outlets across the country were shying away from writing anything critical or unsavoury about the ruling dispensation, unless of course, they were ready to be bombarded by cases filed against them, or worse, being blacklisted.

Ordinary citizens, activists, social workers, members of the media including photographers, journalists and even students were stuck with tags like urban naxals and anti-nationals by ruling parties in various states. Sedition charges were also slapped on some of them and they were locked up indefinitely, with no judicial recourse.

The editor of a respected online portal once revealed how it was becoming difficult to pay the salaries of his staffers, as most of the income was spent flying journalists in and out of cities to appear in court with regard to defamation cases. For the ordinary man on the street, this narrative comes across as a rather unfortunate recurrence, where time and time again, the highest court of the country is compelled to sensitise the Centre on the importance of a strong fourth estate.