Fifty-eight percent of journalists in small towns were arrested compared to only 24 percent in major metropolises.
Only 3 percent of small-town journalists secured interim protection from arrest, compared to 65 percent in major cities.
Journalists working in Hindi and regional languages faced more severe outcomes compared to those working in English.
For cases where status data was available, more than 65 percent remained unsolved as of October, 2023, and only 6 percent had concluded trials.
These are among the findings of a study examining 423 criminal cases registered against 427 journalists between 2012-2022 in India. The study was conducted by the National Law University in Delhi in collaboration with the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch initiative and the Human Rights Institute at the Columbia Law School.
The study’s primary dataset comprises a total of 624 incidents of criminalisation related to journalists’ professional work across 28 Indian states and Union territories. Researchers employed an all-sources approach, gathering information through civil society reports, legal databases, online searches, and direct interviews with affected journalists. They also maintained a separate “backlash database” documenting 128 cases against 77 journalists where charges were ostensibly unrelated to their work but were alleged to be retaliatory in nature.
Despite constitutional protections for press freedom and Supreme Court rulings emphasising journalists’ right to work without reprisal, the data suggests a systematic use of criminal law against journalists, particularly those reporting on public officials. The findings paint a distressing picture for press freedom in India, with almost 40 percent of journalists in the dataset facing arrest.
The research also acknowledges its limitations, including recency bias in online searches (resulting in 60 percent of incidents dating from the last three years), language limitations of researchers (proficient in English, Hindi, Kannada, Bengali, and Marathi), challenges accessing FIRs (particularly those registered before 2016), and unavailability of data on caste and religion of journalists.
Disparity in a vast media landscape
India’s media landscape is vast, but the study exposes significant disparities in how criminalisation affects journalists part of this industry, based on geography and language.
For instance, while defamation charges, which are prosecuted privately rather than by government authorities, were more common against journalists in larger cities and against investigative journalism, offences against public servants were more common in smaller towns and were invoked in relation to ground reporting, the report said. Further, offences linked to disruptions to public order were used against national-level journalists, as well as against digital media or speech on social media, presumably because of their larger audiences.
Journalists from smaller cities, towns, and villages suffer disproportionately, with 58 percent facing arrest compared to only 24 percent of their counterparts in major metropolises. Similarly stark is the contrast in access to legal protection: 65 percent of journalists from major cities secured interim protection from arrest, while the corresponding figure for small-town journalists was a mere 3 percent.
Journalists working in Hindi and other regional languages experienced similar disadvantages compared to those working in English. Particularly vulnerable were “stringers” and freelancers – local journalists who report on a per-story basis, often forming the foundation of the news pyramid by capturing local stories and events.
The legal process appears to function as a form of punishment, according to the study. Of the 244 cases with available status data, more than 65 percent remained unresolved as of October 30, 2023. Police had not completed investigations in 40 percent of cases with relevant data, and only 16 cases – a mere 6 percent – had concluded trials resulting in either conviction or acquittal. These prolonged proceedings inflict significant hardship on journalists and their families.
The charges
The charges most frequently levelled against journalists fall into six broad categories as per the study: offences against public tranquility, criminal intimidation and insult, promoting enmity, defamation, offences against public servants, and offences relating to religion. The first three categories each appeared more than 180 times across the 624 documented incidents.
Of the 427 journalists who faced criminal action, 60 had more than one case filed against them, with 36 journalists facing multiple cases for the same incident, the study said. Nearly 90 percent of incidents involved multiple offences, suggesting that authorities often apply a broad range of charges rather than carefully considering specific violations – creating what researchers describe as a “chilling effect” on journalism.
Fifty-eight percent of the incidents where defamation charges were invoked were linked to journalists reporting on corruption. Over 75 percent of incidents where offences against public tranquility were invoked were linked to journalists reporting on protests. Nearly 61 percent of the incidents were offences relating to outraging religious feelings were invoked were when journalists were reporting on religious issues.
Many of the provisions most frequently used against journalists remain unchanged in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the new penal code introduced in 2024), meaning the threats identified in the report remain acute. Even though the transition also presents an opportunity to reconsider whether and how these broad provisions should apply to journalists.
Through in-depth interviews with 48 journalists selected to represent the broader dataset, researchers documented the profound human impact of these cases. Fifty-eight percent reported experiencing financial hardship; 56 percent reported feelings of fear or anxiety; 73 percent identified negative impacts on their personal lives; and 56 percent said the cases had adversely affected their careers.
One journalist recounted, “My daughter faced severe bullying in school. For nearly two years, they would mock and humiliate her.“ Another lamented, “My family was deeply harrowed by my absence [following their arrest], especially my little children who were so worried. Cases like these don't just target individuals; they tear families apart. Ultimately, they make you beg on your knees.“
Regulatory framework explains lack of support
Institutional support proved crucial in mitigating these consequences, yet it was inconsistently available. Some journalists received significant backing from their employers, which proved essential in securing legal relief. Others faced their ordeals alone, with one journalist noting: “This is, unfortunately, the norm in Indian journalism. Organisations do not stand up for journalists facing criminal charges.”
The regulatory framework governing Indian media may partially explain the reluctance to support journalists who face criminal charges. Laws governing print, broadcast, and digital media allow for significant government oversight, with the extent of regulation varying by medium – broadcast being most regulated, followed by print and digital media. Recent attempts to regulate digital news media have faced criticism for granting the central government “unbridled censorship powers” and have been challenged in court.
While the Indian Supreme Court has acknowledged the dangers posed by applying certain criminal provisions to journalists – noting in one case that these provisions would require interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to communicate news – it has declined to establish specific guidelines for cases against journalists, finding that such action would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature.
Consequently, general criminal law continues to be used against journalists with little regard for speech protections, with over 90 percent of cases in the dataset involving provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The report also suggests stakeholders consider these findings and notes that other systems have adopted more protective approaches. In Indonesia, for instance, the Press Council and National Police have established a Memorandum of Understanding ensuring that complaints about journalistic work are handled by the Press Council before any criminal investigation or legal action is taken – a model that could potentially offer guidance for reform in India.
Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
