A significant event that has revitalized fundamental right of freedom of expression for journalists

By Vikas Meshram* 

The recent remark made by the Supreme Court -- that cases can’t be lodged against journalists for criticising Government -- is a significant event that has revitalized the fundamental rights of freedom of expression for journalists. The core of journalism in a democracy is to examine the policies, plans, and governance of the government and present the truth to the public. For this purpose, it is necessary for journalists to have the right to criticize fearlessly. 

However, in recent years, journalists in various states, particularly those who have criticized the decisions or policies of the ruling political parties, have often faced political persecution. In this context, the Supreme Court's stance has emerged as a ray of hope. It has reflected the true essence of democracy by asserting that journalists have the right to criticize the policies and decisions of the government. The Supreme Court has shown the mirror to those in power.

This statement has provided relief to journalists who have faced repression for raising their voices against various political parties in power. In many states, journalists have been arrested, assaulted, and subjected to serious charges, and there are occasional reports of journalists falling prey to suspicious circumstances. The recent Supreme Court comment offers hope to those fearless journalists who have fallen victim to political persecution. The coming days will reveal how much the government changes its policies in light of the court’s remarks. 

In fact, this comment was made during the hearing of a case filed against a journalist in Uttar Pradesh. In this way, the Supreme Court has shown a mirror to those in power who do not tolerate criticism and become aggressive against the media. After independence, even prominent politicians of the country used to take media criticism of any policy or decision in stride. 

Opposition MPs in Parliament would generally demand open discussions, holding up copies of newspapers. It is in this context that the Supreme Court, during its recent comment, reminded us of the relevant article in the Constitution concerning freedom of expression. In this way, the court has empowered journalists who raise their voices against the oppressive actions of the government.

It is ironic that the rulers in many states have shown disdain for criticism, cartoons, and comments on social media. Filing cases, arresting people, and imprisoning them have also come to light. The tolerance for criticism, which is an essential requirement for a prosperous democratic tradition, seems to be missing in today’s politicians. It has been observed in recent times that after any criticism, politicians become aggressive. 

In some cases, journalists are charged under the sections of law used against anti-national elements. Cases have even been filed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, crossing all boundaries. In such cases, it becomes difficult for journalists to obtain bail. Clearly, such actions are taken out of prejudice. In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it clear in broad terms that criticizing the government cannot be considered sedition. 

Yet, authoritarian rulers are not deterred by such rulings. This tendency has persisted for centuries – governments consider those who expose what they want to keep hidden from the public as their enemies. Then, through any means necessary, they attempt to silence those voices. Gradually, governments have started adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward criticism. In fact, people in power are always afraid of being exposed.

Criticizing or questioning various government schemes or policies is the ethical responsibility of the media

The tradition of accepting criticism is present in cultured societies and vigilant democracies around the world. In this way, the healthy democratic traditions, social development, and progress of a country are assessed. It is good that the judiciary continues to strengthen the freedom of expression from time to time. However, we must remember that even after seven decades of independence, we have not been able to make the common people of the country aware of their right to unbiased information.

As a result, they are not seen standing up to defend fearless journalists when they try to expose the truth. They don’t care that those in power are trying to hide certain truths related to their interests. Politicians always want to spread whatever fame they desire but hide the truth. This Supreme Court comment is sending a positive message to society that criticizing the government’s performance is not a crime but a part of democracy.

The role of the media is not just to be a source of information in a democracy, but to protect people’s rights as well. If journalists attempt to seek the truth and criticize the government's wrong policies, they must be protected. If those in power put pressure on the media, the public’s trust is diminished, and the overall freedom of thought in society is threatened. 

Criticizing or questioning various government schemes or policies is the ethical responsibility of the media. If the media abandons this responsibility, there is a possibility that the fourth pillar of democracy may collapse. Therefore, it is essential for journalists to move forward with courage in their work, and the government must also accept the responsibility of providing adequate assistance and protection to them. Media freedom is crucial for democracy, and it requires all systems to come together to preserve it.

In this entire context, the comment made by the Supreme Court is extremely welcome. This comment is, in a way, a protective shield for the media, allowing journalists to perform their duties fearlessly. The court has shown those in power the errors in their ways and emphasized the importance of journalists' rights. This decision has provided a new direction to the fight against the injustice faced by journalists, and the path to securing their fundamental rights is now clear. There is no doubt that a vigilant and fearless journalist, by playing the role of a strong opposition, shows the way to those in power.

---

*Social activist