Context: The alleged detention of freelance and independent journalists during protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has revived the debate over who qualifies as a journalist and who should have the authority to recognise journalists.
- The controversy highlights the need for a standardised mechanism to recognise journalists while protecting press freedom and professional accountability.
Recent Controversy Over Journalists’ Recognition
- Restrictions on media coverage: During protests in July over the NEET paper leak and October 10 over the CEC’s removal, freelance journalists, independent reporters and content creators gathered alongside journalists from established media organisations.
- Police action: During the October protests, police reportedly detained several independent journalists and content creators, allowing only those with Press Information Bureau (PIB) or Directorate of Information and Publicity (DIP) accreditation to cover the events.
- Supreme Court observations: A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a PIL concerning freelance journalists' freedom of expression, questioned whether every citizen exercising this freedom could automatically claim the status of a journalist.
- Arguments before the Court: Senior advocate Indira Jaisingh advocated a national police protocol to prevent obstruction of journalists carrying employer-issued identity cards, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns over individuals claiming journalistic status to create sensationalised or one-sided social media content for financial gain.
Existing Framework for Recognition of Journalists
- Legal definition: Under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, a working journalist is a person whose principal occupation is journalism and who is employed in newspaper, electronic or digital media, excluding those employed primarily in managerial or administrative roles.
- Government accreditation: Central and State governments provide accreditation to eligible working journalists, freelancers, camerapersons and technicians, facilitating access to designated official sources of information.
- Accreditation authorities: The PIB accredits journalists covering the Central government, while Delhi's DIP provides accreditation for covering the Delhi government.
- Eligibility criteria: Accreditation is governed by media-specific requirements, including circulation (print media), subscribers (news agencies), uplinking/downlinking licences (satellite television) and unique visitors (digital news publishers).
- Limitations: Organisation-wise accreditation quotas mean that even journalists employed by recognised media organisations may not receive accreditation, leaving many working journalists without official recognition.
Proposal for a National Media Council
- Unified recognition: Establish a National Media Council or Commission to recognise working journalists, freelancers, camerapersons and media technicians through a standardised mechanism.
- Professional regulation: Similar to the Bar Council of India (BCI) for legal professionals and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) for chartered accountants, the proposed council could establish professional standards and recognition procedures.
- Educational qualifications: The council could consider requiring a degree or diploma in journalism and mass communication for obtaining a professional licence.
- Earlier proposals: The Press Club of India previously drafted a Media Transparency (and Accountability) Bill, proposing the creation of a national media council, while other journalists' organisations have recently submitted similar demands to the government.
Potential Benefits of a National Media Council
- Inclusive recognition: Provide a common recognition framework for journalists across traditional, digital and independent media, reducing dependence on government accreditation.
- Press freedom: Protect journalists from arbitrary restrictions while reporting on protests and other matters of public interest.
- Professional accountability: Establish ethical standards and mechanisms to address misinformation, sensationalism and misuse of journalistic credentials.
- Institutional clarity: Distinguish professional recognition from government accreditation, reducing ambiguity about journalists' rights and responsibilities.
Concerns and Challenges
- Freedom of expression: Mandatory licensing or educational qualifications could restrict citizen journalism and independent reporting, raising concerns under Article 19(1)(a).
- Government interference: A regulatory body lacking institutional independence could become a mechanism for controlling media coverage or excluding critical journalists.
- Inclusivity: Formal qualification requirements may disadvantage experienced journalists without journalism degrees, particularly those working in regional and grassroots media.
- Diversity of media: A uniform regulatory framework must accommodate traditional media, freelancers, digital news publishers and emerging forms of journalism.
Additional Information: Constitutional and Institutional Framework
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press, although the Constitution does not separately enumerate press freedom.
- Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression on specified grounds, including public order, defamation and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
- Press Council of India (PCI): A statutory, quasi-judicial body established under the Press Council Act, 1978, tasked with preserving press freedom and maintaining journalistic standards, primarily concerning newspapers and news agencies.
- PCI's limitations: Its jurisdiction does not comprehensively extend to television and digital news media, and its powers are largely advisory and censuring rather than punitive.
- PIB accreditation: Accreditation facilitates access to government information and official events; it is not a legal prerequisite for practising journalism.
Way Forward
- Independent institutional framework: Consider an autonomous, representative media council with safeguards against political interference.
- Inclusive professional recognition: Recognise freelancers and digital journalists without making formal qualifications the sole criterion for practising journalism.
- Uniform police protocols: Develop guidelines to protect journalists covering public events while addressing legitimate security and crowd-management concerns.
- Balance rights and accountability: Promote journalistic ethics and professional standards without introducing licensing requirements that undermine constitutional freedoms.
Conclusion: A National Media Council could help address gaps in journalists' recognition and professional accountability. However, any such framework must protect press freedom, ensure institutional independence and avoid turning professional recognition into a restriction on the right to report.
