It has been fifty years since India faced the Emergency in 1975, a time many remember as the darkest chapter in the country’s democratic history, especially because for twenty-one months, the press was strictly censored, journalists were jailed, and the "Fourth Pillar" of democracy was shattered for the first time within Independent India. Fast forward to 2025, and there’s a strong sense of déjà vu within the Indian media as the Constitution still exists on paper, but in practice, the media increasingly acts as an arm of political power. Many critics argue that today’s media often fails to hold the government accountable, with important stories either being delayed or ignored altogether.
Today, the media is under constant pressure, as seen in the silencing of dissenting opinions, the rampant spread of fake and paid-for news, and news that often sounds more like government messaging than independent reporting. This loss of freedom is not just political; it also stems from complex laws and large corporations controlling newsrooms. India’s ranking on the World Press Freedom Index has dropped from 80th in 2002 to 161st in 2023, with a slight improvement to 151st now. This article argues that laws still suppress the press, the media industry is vulnerable, and there is an urgent need for strong, independent journalism.
Legal Analysis
The bedrock of Indian journalism is Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the "freedom of the press," but the Supreme Court has consistently held that this right is inherent within Article 19(1)(a). However, this right is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), the state can impose "reasonable restrictions" in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, and decency. The ambiguity of these restrictions has historically provided the state with the legal leverage to curtail journalistic activity whenever it becomes "inconvenient."
For over a century, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) served as the primary tool for criminalising dissent. While the Supreme Court eventually suspended its use, its replacement in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 152, has been described by critics as "sedition in disguise." Although the word 'sedition' has been formally removed, Section 152 criminalises acts "endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India." Critics argue that this provision equates radical speech or investigative reporting with secession or rebellion. The provision carries a penalty of life imprisonment, making it a disproportionate tool when applied to journalistic critique that does not amount to actual separatist activity.
The use of "special laws" has created a parallel legal system for the media. The Official Secrets Act (OSA) of 1923, a colonial-era relic, is frequently invoked against journalists who uncover government documents or expose defence-related irregularities. Similarly, the National Security Act (NSA) of 1980 and various Public Safety Acts allow for preventive detention without trial. In regions of conflict, such as Kashmir, journalists are often detained under these acts to prevent them from disseminating information deemed "prejudicial to the security of the state." The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PoTA) of 2002, while repealed, set a precedent for the current weaponisation of anti-terror laws against members of the press.
The legal process itself has become a form of punishment. The constant issuance of police summons creates a "chilling effect" on dissent. Journalists are often forced to endure high financial and personal burdens, facing costs in litigation and travel. Despite the availability of technological alternatives like video-conferencing, the police continue to insist on physical presence, amplifying harassment and inconvenience. Furthermore, there is a frequent disregard of judicial mandates; for instance, the failure to provide a copy of an FIR violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Youth Bar Association of India (2016), leaving journalists in the dark about the specific charges they face.
Case References
The decline of media freedom is best illustrated through specific legal and political flashpoints. The Kashmir Times dispute, with the raids occurring in November 2025 by J&K Police's State Investigation Agency (SIA), remains a landmark example of press restriction, where the suspension of communication and the sealing of offices underscored the state's ability to dismantle legacy news institutions. More recently, the cases against journalists such as Abhisar Sharma show how Section 152 and economic crime charges are being used as tools of intimidation rather than legitimate national security protection.
Another significant case involves Rana Ayyub, who in 2022 faced travel restrictions and "Look Out Circulars" that prevented her from attending international journalism events. These cases demonstrate a shift toward using money laundering or tax evasion charges against newsrooms. Unlike traditional defamation charges, these economic allegations allow the state to freeze bank accounts and seize equipment, effectively paralysing the outlet’s ability to function. The selective application of these laws, which target independent critics while ignoring the excesses of state-aligned media, erodes trust in law enforcement and undermines constitutional protections.
Analysis and Personal Insights
To understand why the Indian media has reached this nadir, one must look at the structural economy of the industry through the lens of the Propaganda Model pioneered by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. This model explains how money and power direct the course of news through five filters: concentrated ownership, advertising reliance, sourcing, "flak," and nationalistic control mechanisms. In India, the size and concentrated ownership of media firms are particularly troubling. The Network 18 Group, India’s largest news conglomerate, is owned by Reliance Industries, a corporation with vast interests in the petroleum and telecom sectors that rely heavily on government policy.
The "paid news" phenomenon and corporate greed have fundamentally altered the DNA of Indian journalism. When the owner of Zee News sees their candidacy for the Rajya Sabha sponsored by the ruling party, or when principal investors in Republic TV are active parliamentarians, the line between the press and the state vanishes. This alignment creates a feedback loop where the media relies on information provided by the government and "experts" funded by the same sources. "Flak," in the form of social media trolling and legal harassment, is then used to discipline any journalist who dares to break ranks.
An overlooked factor that should be considered is the growing indifference or hostility of the masses. Over time, segments of the Indian public have become conditioned to accept "fake news" and "paid news" as legitimate, a trend cited by international outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and Reuters. When a large section of the populace views the persecution of journalists as a victory for "national interest," the democratic safeguard of the press loses its foundation. This public hostility, combined with barriers to information access and the lack of whistleblower protection, creates a perfect storm for the suppression of truth.
The Indian media is at a crossroads. The transition from a "watchdog" to a "lapdog" threatens the very foundations of the Republic. However, the survival of independent outlets like The Quint provides a roadmap for resilience. There are four recommendations prescribed by the University of Oxford in their article about “How to Keep Doing Journalism under Siege: Five Tips from Editors in India and Hungary, by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.”
Firstly, to prioritise solid journalism over sensationalism.
Journalists must focus on producing indisputably solid journalism. In hostile environments, even a small window of interpretation can be weaponised by the state. As Ritu Kapur suggests, newsrooms should move away from chasing pageviews and instead focus on impact. Drastically cutting output to ensure every published piece is bulletproof can safeguard an outlet against legal retaliation.
Secondly, to establish financial independence
Newsrooms must seek financial viability outside of government-controlled advertising. This involves tapping into audience support through membership schemes and crowdfunding. While this may lead to smaller newsrooms, it ensures that the editorial line is not dictated by corporate or political sponsors. Choosing to support independent media should be framed to the public as a vital act of political and democratic expression.
Third, collective defence and solidarity within the media
This is not the time for competition between independent outlets. Establishing groups like Digipub India Foundation allows journalists to stand together. When one outlet is under threat, the collective must rally to provide legal aid and publicise the issue. International pressure also plays a crucial role; highlighting domestic struggles to global bodies can prevent the government from enacting even more "outrageous" restrictions.
And lastly, radical accountability for investigating agencies
There is an urgent need for state accountability. The absence of consequences for investigating agencies that bypass judicial mandates erodes the rule of law. Legal reforms must be sought to penalise the "weaponisation of procedure," ensuring that police summons and FIRs cannot be used as tools of harassment. If the fourth pillar is to be restored, the media must step out from the shadow of politics and back into the light of public service.
By following these steps, we can gradually cultivate a reliable and trustworthy media landscape that encourages nuanced debates, fostering intellectual dialogue for the betterment of our country. This approach also prioritises the safety of journalists dedicated to pursuing genuine journalism.

Tajammul-ul-Islam, Sheikh. “Is Indian Media Free from State Control? An Appraisal.” Policy Perspectives, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 27–40. JSTOR, https:doi.org/10.13169/polipers.16.2.0027. Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.
“Free Speech in India 2025: Behold the Hidden Hand.” Free Speech Collective, 2025, freespeechcollective.in/reports/fsc-reports/free-speech-in-india-2025-behold-the-hidden-hand/. Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.
‌ “How to Keep Doing Journalism under Siege: Five Tips from Editors in India and Hungary | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.” Reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk, reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-keep-doing-journalism-under-siege-five-tips-editors-india-and-hungary.
<‌ref> PCI, Report on Paid News (New Delhi: Press Council of India, 2010), http:webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NafFX3BlEBYJ:presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/CouncilReport.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk.