FREEDOM OF PRESS AND MEDIA IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY – NEED FOR RESTRAINT

 Freedom refers to the state of liberty, or right and the privilege to speak and act according to

one’s own will. Press and media (print, electronic and internet) are the most important medium of expressing opinion of the people in a democratic way in a democratic country that justifies one’s individual right to speech and expression, a coveted right enshrined in the Indian constitution under Art.19 .

Press generally refers to the newspaper industry. In modern world, besides newspaper, there are various forms of news-media such as television and radio broadcasting, online news websites and blogs, etc. The most important ingredient of democracy is the existence of free, fearless and unbiased press. In a democracy, the press must enjoy complete freedom and should not be subjected to any restriction. The voice of the press is the voice of the people. It keeps the people informed of the national and international news and happenings. It brings to the notice of people the programmes, policies and activities of the government. Similarly, it keeps the Government informed of the people’s problems, difficulties, hopes and aspirations. Thus the press plays a dual role. It serves as a bridge between the Government on the one hand and the people on the other. Censoring the press means the suppression of people’s voice. So the very survival of democracy inevitably depends on the freedom of the press. But at the same time, the press must not fail to follow its code of conduct and misuse the freedom.

 

India is a democratic country. The Indian constitution guarantees the “freedom of speech and expression” as a fundamental right of every citizen of India. The restrictions that apply to the “freedom of speech and expression” also apply to the “freedom of press and media”. The Freedom of the Press has not been  mentioned anywhere in the Indian constitution. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is provided in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It is believed that Freedom of Speech and Expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution include freedom of the press. Freedom of expression enables one to express one’s own voices as well as those of others. But freedom of the press must be subject to those restrictions which apply to the freedom of speech and expression. The restrictions mentioned in Art. 19(1)(b) are defamation, contempt of court, decency or morality, security of the state, friendly relations with other states, incitement to an offence, public order and maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The so called freedom of press is similar to the personal freedom of a citizen of India and it is subject to similar statutory restrictions and are governed by the laws, rules and regulations applicable elsewhere throughout India like Companies Act, Industrial laws, shops and establishment Act, Contract Act and so on and so forth. As such freedom of press can not be curtailed by enacting any Act or law contrary to the principles of Art.19 of the Constitution of India.

The censorship of press is a very sensitive issue for every democracy f the world. India is also not an exception to that. In 1976, during the national emergency, the parliament of India enacted the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act. The Janata Dal Government in 1973 repealed the Act. However, the 44^th amendment adopted in 1978 has given the parliament substantial powers to regulate press freedom. A new article 361A has been added to the Constitution with this object in view which reads as –

‘361A. Protection of publication of proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures.- (1) No person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the publication of any report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State.

(2) Clause (1) shall apply in relation to reports or matters broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy as part of any programme or service provided by means of a broadcasting station as it applies in relation to reports or matters published in a newspaper.

Explanation.—In this article, “newspaper” includes a news agency report containing material for publication in a newspaper.’

Except the above one there is no express provision in Indian Constitution for censorship of the press. However, at present censorship is valid in times of emergency under Art.352 and in times when Art. 19 itself remains suspended under Art.356 of the Constitution of India.

In Ramesh Thapar Vs. State of Madras the Supreme Court of India struck down Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act,1949 as violative of Art.19(1)(a) in as much as it sought to impose restriction on the freedom of press not against undermining the security of the state but for the wider purpose of securing Public safety or maintenance of Public order.

Though the primary duty of the press is objective reporting of the news in a  dispassionate manner but sometimes out of sheer commercial and/or political reasons some media houses indulge in ‘Yellow Journalism.” They broadcast/publish biased and coloured news. Sometimes rumors are also spread. They go to the extent of indulging in character assassination, mudslinging and blackmailing. These activities are against journalistic ethics. Some media trigger communal feelings among various sections of the people and spread communal hatred. In fact, some newspapers espouse the cause of only one community. They do not judge problems on their merits. They view problems from a communal angle. Such newspapers do disservice to the nation.

 

In India, most of the media houses  are controlled by big industrialists. As a result  these houses tend to promote the interest of certain sections of the society or for that matter interest of certain political parties. They pay no heed even to the genuine problems of the workers, farmers, artisans and other weaker sections of the people.

 

While the press should enjoy freedom to perform its role effectively, it should not treat such freedom as a licence to defame anybody. It should not publish any views or support any movement which violates our Constitution or is against the territorial integrity and unity of the country.

 

Commercialisation of Indian News media can easily be fathomed from the facts that the circulation of Indian dailies jumped 33% to over 7.86 crore during 2001-2005 even as global newspaper circulation increased 9.95% in the same period. Contrary to conventional wisdom, newspaper circulation is growing and new newspapers are being launched at a remarkable rate, the Paris-based World Association of Newspapers (WAN) said in a release on 6-02-2007. Daily newspaper titles surpassed 10,000 for the first time in histoiy, with India accounting for 1,834 dailies in 2005, up 22.8% from 1,493 dailies in 2001 according to World Press Trends.

 

Media Trial – Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and 21st century to describe the process and impact of television and newspaper coverage and publication on any particular incident by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before or after the verdict in a court of law.

Media has been the voice of thousands through which a platform is provided for the common man. In rapidly changing socio economic conditions like in India ( largest democratic country) media has gained prominence and hence referred as a fourth pillar of democracy. Of course sometimes a drop of ink dropped down from the journalist's pen might be more powerful than a bullet from the soldier's gun. According to criminal jurisprudence a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair trial and considered to be innocent  until proven guilty by the court of law.

On the other hand, some famous criminal cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media are Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, Nitish Katara murder case etc. In Jessica La case the trial court had acquitted Sidhartha Vashisht @  Manu Sharma of all the charges depending upon the obvious lacunae in the prosecution case. The High Court however reversed the trial court judgment.Even in a recent incident  like Aarushi Talwar's case the media has played a major role pointing towards her parents. Likewise it can change the whole way of perceiving. The concept of media trial is not new. There have been numerous instances in which media has been accused of conducting the trial of the accused and passing the 'verdict' even before the court passes its judgment. Trial is essentially a process to be carried out by the courts. It is essential by any judicial system that the accused should have a fair trial.

Media has almost reincarnated itself as the public court. It has been the voice of the people who can never be heard, the light to the people who can never see the reality and the guide to the judge affecting the decisions. High-profile civil litigation is not just decided in the courts; it also is decided in the court of public opinion. The magnitude of the coverage and the filter through which the media reports on litigation can create a "clear bias in civil cases." A larger issue is the complex nature of juror bias and how that bias predisposes a juror toward one side in a case. It is no secret that we all have biases. The difficulty comes from understanding how those biases may ultimately affect the viewing of evidence and the deliberations in a case. Judges are also Human Beings they too care about the reputation and promotion and remunerations. Media is so much into our day to day life that even judges can't stay away from it. And as a result there is also an additional pressure on the judges which include trials of high publicity.

The law as to interference with the due course of justice has been well stated by the chief justice Gopal Rao Ekkbote of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Y.V. Hanumantha Rao v. K.R. Pattabhiram and Anr., where in it was observed by the learned judge that: “ …… When litigation is pending before a Court, no one shall comment on it in such a way there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action, as for instance by influence on the Judge, the witnesses or by prejudicing mankind in general against a party to the cause. Even if the person making the comment honestly believes it to be true, still it is a contempt of Court if he prejudices the truth before it is ascertained in the proceedings. To this general rule of fair trial one may add a further rule and that is that none shall, by misrepresentation or otherwise, bring unfair pressure to bear on one of the parties to a cause so as to force him to drop his complaint or defence. It is always regarded as of the first importance that the law which we have just stated should be maintained in its full integrity. But in so stating the law we must bear in mind that there must appear to be 'a real and substantial danger of prejudice'.”

The media create a series of unconscious pressures on a judge  in a high-profile trial. Judges know that they are being watched by the world. They are not only making a decision for themselves, but they are making a statement for their family, co-workers, community, and society as a whole. This elevates their verdict to a level beyond the evidence.

Scrapping of Sec.66a- Information Technology Act,2000. --- The Supreme Court on 24^th March,2015 struck down Sec.66A- Information Technology Act,2000(Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India) providing for arrest for posting allegedly "offensive" content on websites saying, it is "unconstitutional" and has a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech and expression. The apex court also held that the expressions used in section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, which had been used by various administrations against inconvenient posts in the cyber space, are "completely open-ended and undefined".

However, the bench turned down the plea to strike down section 69A and Section 79 of the Act which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking sites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases respectively.

It is clear that the impugned provision of Sec 66A "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately" invades the right of free speech and upsets balance between such right and reasonable restrictions that may be imposed, the court held.

The provision, which had come under the scanner of the court after two Mumbai girls were arrested for posting and liking a comment on Facebook relating to shutdown in the city following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death, was also invoked recently against a youth in Uttar Pradesh for his post on the state minister Azam Khan.

The court examined the validity of the provision by referring to various aspects relating to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (2) of the Constitution which deals with reasonable restrictions and its impact on Article 14 and 21 which relate to the right to equality and personal liberty respectively.

While quashing section 66A, which was brought through an amendment by previous UPA government and defended by present NDA regime, a bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman said, "Incidentally, none of the expressions used in Section 66A are defined.

"Even 'criminal intimidation' is not defined – and the definition clause of the Information Technology Act, Section 2 does not say that words and expressions that are defined in the Penal Code will apply to this Act." The bench assailed the provision, which in the recent past has resulted in several arrests by the state authorities on the ground of its "chilling effect and over breadth".

"We, therefore, hold that the section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of over breadth,"the court said.

 The apex court, which held that the expressions used in section 66A are "open minded and undefined", also analysed the meaning of terms like "causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will", used in the provision.

"Governments may come and Governments may go but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present Government even if carried out faithfully would not bind any successor Government. It must, therefore, be held that Section 66A must be judged on its own merits without any reference to how well it may be administered," Justice Nariman, who wrote the verdict, said.

The bench also dealt with Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act which was invoked to arrest a person for causing "annoyance" to others in an "indecent manner" by communicating through various modes and held it as "unconstitutional".

"However, what has been said about Section 66A would apply directly to Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, as causing annoyance in an indecent manner suffers from the same type of vagueness and over breadth, that led to the invalidity of Section 66A, and for the reasons given for striking down Section 66A, Section 118(d) also violates Article 19(1)(a) and not being a reasonable restriction on the said right and not being saved under any of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) is hereby declared to be unconstitutional," it said. It further said there are three concepts to understand the expression "freedom of speech and expression" and they are "discussion", "advocacy" and "incitement." "Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in," it said.

CONCLUSION –  Thus it is crystal clear from the above discussion that  while freedom of press and media – the fourth pillar of democracy is very vital and sensitive but  sometimes it calls for some restraint. Occasionally  by operation of statute and otherwise by self restraint the media should always be mindful of their vital and important role in the progress of democracy of any nation around the globe. Rising above the commercial  and political interests   it should constantly publish/air the news and views in an unbiased and reluctant manner to say the least. Only then it will be able to cherish the freedom accorded to it by the sovereign power. Freedom of press and media is an well earned dues from the time immemorial through lots of struggle and tyranny all over the world  and as such misuse of the same by some  partisan houses should never be encouraged as it may bring this “freedom” before further criticism and restrictions which is however not at all healthy for any civilization to prosper. 

======================== 

Disclaimer :- This is a free tutorial blog made only for the purpose of educating the concerned students. This creator does not claim any right over the pictures, photos, explanatory video clips and/or diagrams used in this video and they belong to their original creator(s). This creator never intends to infringe the copyright of any original artwork and the pictures, photos, diagrams used in this video are only for the educational purpose, completely free of cost. 
Disclaimer - This article is for educational purpose only. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Photo:https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom+of+press+royalty+free+pics&sxsrf=ALeKk03oN6IizuweBYBdS9dHy1uepvyCIA:1600877053552&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3lOzg0__rAhWYyzgGHcIdAmoQ_AUoAXoECA0QAw&biw=1366&bih=618#imgrc=G7nm1IJJxY-7qM