MUTINY

Freedom of press in India if overlooked from a surface looks adequate enough, yet as we go deeper into the crux of the issue the broader, and I may say, ugly picture comes into the highlight. Unlike America, India fails to give special privileges to the press. Like ordinary citizens, press also has its freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)A, which allows the press to print and publish without any restrictions, both news and views; to criticize, to circulate anywhere in India, to print any number of pages and to access public information.

Like all the laws in India, freedom of press is not absolute. The reasonable restrictions under freedom of press are in the interest of society: security and sovereignty, friendly relations, decency and morality, contempt of court. These restrictions though stand on a justifying grounds, a question which arises is who makes sure that these restrictions is imposed under right circumstances.

As seen in the recent case in Tamil Nadu where six journalists were sentenced to 15 days simple imprisonment for alleged breach of privilege and contempt by the state Legislative Assembly. Another incident which brings the freedom of press under radar is when Alex Perry, a foreign journalist published an article about Prime Minister Vajpayee’s fitness, thereby questioning his ability to lead the nation, considerably angered the ruling party at that time.

Another case which questions the freedom of press is the recent blogger case, where Chyetanya Kunte was sent a legal notice by NDTV for suggesting that Barkha Dutta’s reports of the Mumbai siege might have endangered lives. This incident got the public to question the freedom of press and there were demonstrations of anger with howls of protest about NDTV’s bullying tactics, and defenses of a blogger’s right to free speech.

Mr. Shah Jahan, Bureau chief of Asianet News, said that freedom of press is adequate in most of the issues. In corporate cases, the coverage of news becomes a major problem, he says. Even before the 2G scam hit the news channel, there was bits and pieces of news everywhere within all news channels about the scandal, yet no one could come out in open and publish the news due to lack of evidence. Only when the documents were made public by wiki, the news channels were able to confront those involved in it. Thus, one of the major threat which journalist today face, is defamation due to lack of evidence.

Another point to note is that freedom of press is often in the putty of those in power. In India, money and power rules everything, including media. Media, journalist to be more precise is often affiliated towards particular political party due to which news provided by them is biased. The case in point is Times of India and Times Now, which openly claims herself to be left aligned, due to which news is influential towards the congress party. Recently, with the Baba Ramdev case, research shows that Times Now gave a negative report on the midnight crises, purposely downplaying his motives behind the fast and thus creating a furor over the entire issue. They played with the power dynamics clearly in the favour of ruling party, making Baba Ramdev nothing less than a criminal punished for fighting against corruption.

Another factor which risks the freedom of press in India is the ownership of media organizations. Very often editors and journalists cannot enjoy adequate freedom of collecting and disseminating facts and offering comments as they are under the pressure of the capitalist owners. Also, news which is presented in the media has to be in accordance to advertisements and the sponsor’s. This was seen in the case of an IBM employer who was forced to resign when he ‘commented’ on the working of IIPM. This led to a fury within the IIPM administration and they threatened the IBM that they will severe all the future ties with the IBM and also cancel the order of the computers. Due to this, the employer was pressurized to resign least it affect the company and cause a huge loss in capital within the company. Unless this whole structure of ownership and control in the newspaper industry, and also the manner of the economic management of the Press, is changed, the Press cannot be really free.

Jayashree Nandi, of Times of India says that there hasn’t been much restrictions on the freedom of press since the emergency in 1984. In comparison to countries in the Middle East and in South East Asia which have strict government regulation on the content the press puts out, India stands in a good position. “Here we are fortunate not to have any such inhibitions or restrictions”, she says. The only precaution which is needed to be taken by the journalist, to avoid reasonable restrictions is that they need to be very careful about media ethics and laws and not get involved in defamation cases. Thus, they should quote, provide proof in the form of documents or use RTI to expose issues in the government.

Seetha Lakshmi, Editor of Times of India, feels that the freedom of press is curbed mostly pertaining to religious issues. Journalists are often questioned, when news regarding religious sentiments is published; as there is always a chance that the ‘sovereignty’ of the country might be threatened as one or more religious groups might feel ‘upset’ over the comment made by the reporter often leading to riots.

Mr. Anil (job information withheld), feels that freedom of press is frequently misused by the media organizations, and they use the license given to them to write anything without verifying the facts. This trend is seen mostly in the broadcast industry, he feels. In order to lead the race for ‘breaking news’, 24/7 news channels publish reports without cross checking their leads and sources. Also, in order to produce something different, news is often a product and a reality.

Freedom of press requires checking, and though there is a need for special recognition of press within the constitution, I feel that in order to keep a check on media organizations is by reducing the growing number of 24 hour news channel. 24 news channels is a commercial product which reduces the credibility of news and also often dwell in sensationalism due to which the essence of news is lost. The freedom of press needs to make special consensus with regard to New Media, especially blogs. Also, the Supreme Court must deal strictly with regard to political affiliations and media organizations, as this puts the function of media as the watch dog of the country into scrutiny.

On the whole, Reasonable restrictions imposed by the constitution hold ground but there are a lot of loop holes within these restrictions which needs to be answered by the court. Clear remarks should be given to the journalist about their excise of freedom at the same time some clause should be present which checks the usage of freedom of the press.