India Supreme Court: Journalist Constitutional Protection Under Review

• The Supreme Court is hearing 32 petitions regarding alleged police excesses during protests against electoral roll revisions.
• Women journalists reported sexual harassment and manhandling by male police at protest sites.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned the ability to distinguish between 'reel makers' and 'independent journalists' in protest settings.
• Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated the Court will examine varying constitutional protections for accredited journalists, freelancers, independent journalists, and influencers.
• Indian press freedom is derived from Article 19(1)(a) and does not grant special privileges beyond a citizen's freedom of speech, as established in *MSM Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha*.

The fundamental question before the Court is whether constitutional protections for the press are contingent upon formal accreditation or specific professional labels, or if they inherently apply to all who engage in journalistic activity.

India's Supreme Court recently convened on October 15 to deliberate on a series of 32 petitions, all alleging instances of police misconduct during public demonstrations. These protests were specifically organized in opposition to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the actions of the Chief Election Commissioner, drawing significant attention to the treatment of citizens, including journalists, by law enforcement.

A particularly concerning aspect of the petitions involved allegations from women journalists who reported being sexually harassed and physically manhandled by male police personnel at the protest sites. Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta acknowledged that no woman should face inappropriate treatment from the police. However, he also expressed reservations about issuing a broad, blanket directive, citing the administrative challenge of distinguishing between a "reel maker" and an "independent journalist" amidst a crowded protest.

Unlike the United States, where press freedom is explicitly enshrined in the First Amendment, the Indian Constitution does not feature a distinct fundamental right dedicated solely to the press. Instead, the freedom of the press in India is interpreted as an integral component of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.

This interpretation was firmly established by the Supreme Court in its 1959 ruling, *MSM Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha*. In this landmark case, the Court clarified that the press holds no elevated status or special privileges beyond the general freedom of speech and expression afforded to every citizen. This precedent underscores that the rights of journalists are fundamentally tied to the broader constitutional protections available to all individuals. Against this backdrop, Justice Joymalya Bagchi indicated that the Court would undertake a comprehensive examination of the varying degrees of protection currently available to accredited journalists, freelancers, independent journalists, and even social media influencers.

The ongoing Supreme Court proceedings are poised to critically assess the extent of constitutional protection for journalists in India, particularly focusing on whether such rights are contingent upon formal accreditation or specific professional labels. The Court's inquiry into the distinctions between accredited journalists, freelancers, independent reporters, and 'reel makers' is crucial, as it will determine if the constitutional safeguards derived from Article 19(1)(a) are universally applicable or if they can be restricted based on administrative classifications.

The fundamental question before the Court is whether constitutional protections for the press are contingent upon formal accreditation or specific professional labels, or if they inherently apply to all who engage in journalistic activity. The outcome of these deliberations will have profound implications for the rights of media practitioners across the spectrum, clarifying their legal recourse against state actions during public events and shaping the future of press freedom in India.

Lawyers advising media clients should closely monitor the Supreme Court's examination of constitutional protection for journalists, especially non-accredited individuals and 'reel makers,' as the outcome will clarify the scope of their rights and potential legal recourse against state actions during public events, impacting advice on reporting and protest coverage.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets