EDITORIAL: Free speech, not free of accountability

There can be no debate that the arrest of a senior journalist in Mumbai for abetment of suicide is a matter of concern. Not because of the charges, but more because of the manner in which it played out. The two-year-old case involving a suicide, where the journalist was named, closed in 2019, and was then reopened on the instruction of Maharashtra’s home minister, in the backdrop of a battle between the TV channel and the Mumbai Police over its investigations into a ratings scam. The arrest drew sharp reactions from the Centre with several Union Ministers being quick to condemn the action by the police. From likening it to the Emergency, to bringing up attacks on freedom of press, Twitter was abuzz with angry reactions.

Ironically, India’s Information and Broadcasting Minister, who has come under severe criticism for re-engineering the Centre’s media policies to mute criticism about the ruling party, was one of the first to tweet against the arrest. It is pertinent to recall that since March 25, when the nationwide lockdown was announced, at least 10 journalists have been arrested or charged for filing reports critical of the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis. And this trend has been seen across the country. There are cases against journalists by the Shiv Sena, NCP & Congress government in Maharashtra, the Congress government in Chattisgarh and the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu.

However, just days before the arrest of the editor-in-chief, the situation was quite different and the very same channel was at the receiving end of censure from a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde who said that ‘this has never been the level of discourse’. Bobde made his case for a little ‘old-fashioned reporting’, emphasising that maintaining social harmony was imperative and that a cautious and responsible approach towards journalism would be preferred.

This shameful series of events once again forces us to re-examine the role of the Fourth Estate and question this ‘freedom’. The sacred space, be it those within the opinion columns of a newspaper, the airwaves of radio, the primetime coverage on TV or even long-form online commentaries – are directed towards one goal – help build an informed consensus through civil and respectful conversations. Instead, what we are sometimes confronted with today is a cacophony – a veritable contest of who can outspeak and outgun the other. This is obviously far from the ideals enshrined in our Constitution, which guarantees us the Freedom of the Press.

The crux is that freedom of information for journalists and publishers is not unlimited. It is necessary to safeguard its rights but also demand its duties, thus making freedom and responsibility inseparable. And this duty includes treating information as a citizen’s fundamental right and not as a merchandise. Mass media has a decisive role in the development of democracy and public opinion. However, it must not try and take over the role of public authorities nor falsely represent public opinion.

However, as we have seen in many instances, self-regulation proved to be ruled more by convenience than ethics, causing the Press Council of India (PCI), a watchdog for print media, to step in and recommend to the Centre to make suitable amendments to the Press Council Act, 1978 to include media outlets including news channels, e-papers, electronic and social media under one legislation. While this may not provide an immediate solution to the concern of press freedom being misused, one thing is clear. It doesn’t matter who started the fire. All in its path will get burnt.