What are the Constitutional Safeguards and Legal Frameworks for Freedom of the Press in India?

The freedom of the press in India, implicit under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is vital for democracy. While it empowers open dialogue, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to ensure public order, security, and individual rights.

Harish Khan

Dec 15, 2024 • 10 min read

Freedom of the Press and the Constitution

Part III of the Indian Constitution[1] enshrines a range of fundamental rights, which are guaranteed and protected to ensure equality, freedom, and dignity for all citizens. Among these rights is the freedom of speech and expression, safeguarded under Article 19(1)(a)[2].
Article 19(1)(a) grants individuals the liberty to express their thoughts and opinions without fear of legal or punitive action. It empowers citizens to convey their views, share their concerns, and voice criticisms of government policies through spoken or written words, signs, gestures, representations, or other forms of communication. The freedom of speech and expression thus enables people to articulate their demands, raise objections, and express discontent with governmental actions without fear of reprisal.
In Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras[3], the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and the press is the cornerstone of democracy and a crucial element for the effective functioning of good governance. This freedom is indispensable in a democratic society, allowing citizens to discuss political issues, express concerns, and critique government policies openly. For democracy to thrive, characterized by transparent governance and free elections, the state must uphold and protect the right of individuals to voice political opinions and criticize government actions without censorship or sanctions.
The freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that empowers citizens to speak without censorship or fear of punishment. However, this right is not absolute.
In Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court[4], it was clarified that freedom of speech does not grant a license to make unfounded accusations, particularly against judicial institutions. Article 19(2)[5] of the Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions on this freedom to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of India, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, and to prevent contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense. These limitations ensure a balanced exercise of free speech within the framework of constitutional values.

Freedom of the Press and Media

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a)[6]. This provision, while fundamental, is not to be interpreted narrowly; its scope is expansive, implicitly including the right to freedom of the press.
The press and media, both print and electronic, enjoy the liberty to publish, circulate, and broadcast news or information, political or otherwise, without fear of censorship or sanctions.
The Indian Press Commission defines press freedom as the “freedom to hold opinions, to receive and impart information through the printed word, without any interference from any public authority.”[7] It further emphasizes that democracy thrives not only on vigilant legislatures but also on the respect for public opinion and the promotion of a free press.
Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly provide for freedom of the press, unlike the United States, this right exists implicitly under Article 19(1)(a)[8]. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the press does not possess extraordinary rights distinct from those of ordinary citizens; instead, the press exercises the broader principle of freedom of expression.[9]
In Sakal Papers v. Union of India[10], the Supreme Court interpreted Article 19(1)(a) to include press freedom as an integral aspect of free speech, asserting that it cannot surpass the liberties safeguarded by speech and expression. Similarly, in Printers v. Assistant CTO[11], the Court reiterated that press freedom is implied within the right to free speech, rather than being a standalone fundamental right.
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the contours of press freedom in India. In Brij Bhushan v. Delhi[12], the Supreme Court struck down an order imposing pre-censorship on the newspaper The Organiser under the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, deeming it a violation of the press’s freedom to publish views and opinions without interference.
Likewise, in Sakal Papers v. Union of India[13], the Court invalidated government orders that sought to regulate newspaper prices and page numbers, emphasizing that such restrictions infringed upon the constitutional right to free speech and expression.
However, the press is not exempt from general laws of the land. In Express Newspapers v. Union of India[14], the Court upheld the Working Journalists Act, 1955, reasoning that regulations aimed at improving journalists' conditions were constitutionally valid, even if they indirectly impacted press finances. Similarly, in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India[15], the Court ruled that the imposition of import duties on newsprint was lawful as long as it was fair and reasonable, highlighting that press freedom does not shield newspapers from taxation.
Other significant rulings have further delineated the boundaries of press liberty. In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India[16], the Court invalidated government-imposed limitations on newspaper page numbers, declaring that content, circulation, and growth cannot be controlled by the state.
In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[17], the Supreme Court held that the government cannot impose prior restrictions on publications defamatory to public officials, affirming the press's right to publish material based on public or court records. In Hindustan Times v. State of UP[18], the Court struck down taxes on newspaper advertisements, recognizing their essential role in ensuring free circulation.
The balance between press freedom and justice administration was addressed in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI[19]. The Court acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling these interests but upheld the press's liberty to report legal proceedings unless a reasonable cause necessitated postponement.
Thus, while press freedom in India operates within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a)[20], it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)[21]. The courts have consistently recognized and protected the implicit liberties of the press, ensuring its vital role in sustaining democracy and promoting informed public discourse.

Legal and Political Restrictions on the Freedom of Press and Media

Constitutional Restrictions

The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)[22], which inherently includes freedom of the press. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions enumerated in Article 19(2)[23]. These limitations apply to both print and electronic media, ensuring that the exercise of press freedom does not conflict with broader societal and state interests. Restrictions can be imposed on grounds such as the sovereignty and integrity of India, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offense.

In the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[24] case, the Supreme Court clarified that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) allows for the expression of inconvenient or unpleasant views, provided they do not incite action on any of the specified grounds under Article 19(2). The Papanasam Labour[25] case established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of such restrictions. These reasonable restrictions on the media and press have been briefly discussed as follows with appropriate cases:

Security of the State: The press cannot publish material that threatens national security by inciting rebellion, war, or public disorder. In State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi[26], the Court ruled that any expression leading to criminal acts against state security falls outside the ambit of free speech.
Friendly Relations with Foreign States: Media is restricted from disseminating content that could harm India’s diplomatic relations. Publishing hostile or inflammatory propaganda against foreign states is prohibited to maintain international harmony.
Public Order: Content that disrupts societal peace and tranquility or incites violence is barred. Public order was introduced as a restriction through the First Constitution Amendment Act of 1951. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[27], the Court emphasized that restrictions must address significant threats to public order, not minor disturbances.
Sovereignty and Integrity of the State: Publications undermining India's unity and integrity are restricted. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[28] penalizes sedition; however, sedition itself is not explicitly listed as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)[29].
Decency or Morality: Press freedom is curtailed for content considered obscene or immoral. The IPC’s Sections 292 and 294[30] enforce these limitations. In Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra[31], the Court upheld restrictions on obscene publications to safeguard societal values.
Contempt of Court: The press must avoid content that scandalizes the judiciary or prejudices ongoing cases. The Supreme Court and High Courts, under Articles 129 and 215[32], respectively, hold the power to penalize contempt. In C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta[33], this authority was deemed a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)[34].
Defamation: Media must refrain from publishing defamatory content that injures an individual’s reputation. Section 499 of the IPC[35] addresses both libel and slander. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India[36], the Court recognized the right to reputation as integral to Article 21, affirming that freedom of speech does not extend to defaming others.
Incitement to an Offense: Media is prohibited from publishing content that provokes criminal activities. In Shailabala Devi’s case[37], the Court held that expressions leading to incitement of serious crimes are against state interests.

Statutory Limitations

In addition to constitutional constraints, several laws impose further restrictions on the press:

Official Secrets Act, 1923: This law aims to safeguard secret and confidential information from unauthorized access and potential enemies. It prohibits newspapers and media from publishing classified materials related to espionage, defense, military operations, and similar matters.
Indian Penal Code: Limitation on the press and media is imposed by the Indian Penal Code through various provisions. Section 124A[38] restricts the press on grounds of sedition. By section 153A[39], any person including the press and media may be punished for promotion of hate between various socio-cultural and religious groups and acting against preservation of public peace. Press and media are further limited on grounds of “decency and morality” under section 292, 293 and 294[40] and on grounds of “religious harmony” under sections 295, 295A and 298[41] of the Code.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Prevents media from publishing unpublished governmental records or confidential communications.
Press Council Act, 1978: Establishes the Press Council of India to regulate journalism standards. The council has the authority to warn or censure newspapers, agencies, or publishers for unethical or immoral practices that contravene press ethics.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Imposes restrictions on print and electronic media, prohibiting the publication of material that violates specific rules or obstructs the administration of justice.

These legal frameworks ensure that press freedom is exercised responsibly, balancing the media’s role in a democracy with the need to maintain public order, state security, and individual rights.

Conclusion

In contemporary society, the press serves as a cornerstone of democracy, entrusted with the dual responsibilities of disseminating information and shaping public opinion. While the Indian Constitution and statutory frameworks uphold the liberty of the press, this freedom is often tempered by political influences, unethical practices, and various legal and social constraints. The misuse of press freedom for political propaganda, paid news, media sensationalism, and biased reporting undermines its credibility and purpose. Additionally, external factors such as communal ideologies, misinformation through digital platforms, and socio-economic challenges further obstruct the press from fulfilling its role effectively.

Although governmental and legislative restrictions are intended to maintain public order and protect state interests, arbitrary interference and political intrusions have eroded the integrity of the press. To safeguard democracy, it is imperative that the press operates fearlessly and responsibly, free from undue influence and corruption. By adopting ethical journalism and focusing on factual, unbiased reporting, the media can regain public trust and uphold democratic values. Strengthening the press requires balancing its freedom with accountability to ensure it remains a resilient force for truth and justice in society.

[1] Part III of the Indian Constitution.

[2] The Indian Constitution, art. 19(1)(a).

[3] 1950 AIR 124.

[4] AIR 2003 SC 1467.

[5] The Indian Constitution, art. 19(2).

[6] Supra at 2.

[7] Press Commission, Report, Part I, paragraph 1453.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, VII, 980.

[10] 1962 AIR 305.

[11] 1994 SCC 2 434.

[12] AIR 1950 SC 129.