Censorship's Shadow - An Examination Of Press Freedom's Erosion In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
CENSORSHIP'S SHADOW: AN EXAMINATION OF PRESS
FREEDOM'S EROSION IN INDIA
Gulnar Bharati, Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the erosion of press freedom and free speech in India, analyzing the legal, historical, and contemporary factors shaping the current climate. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Yet, it faces increasing threats due to laws like the sedition provision under the Indian Penal Code, which has been recently repealed and reintroduced through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill. Highprofile cases, such as Kanhaiya Kumar's sedition charges and the government's censorship of social media, underscore these challenges. Drawing on global examples like China and Russia, the paper also explores the tension between national security and civil liberties, focusing on the importance of a free press as a democratic institution.
Achievements of investigative journalism, such as the *Tehelka* exposés, are contrasted with the potential state efforts to curtail dissent. The paper concludes by advocating the role of vigilant media in preserving democratic integrity while also addressing necessary limits.
Introduction
Freedom of speech and expression, especially freedom of the press, is the bedrock of any functioning democracy. Through it, citizens are informed, governments are held accountable, and societal progress is nurtured. However, the world has recently witnessed a worrying trend: an erosion of these freedoms across many democracies, including India. The relationship between state power, the media, and the law has often been one of contention, with each party grappling to define the boundaries of permissible speech. This paper is an attempt to explore the gradual breakdown of press freedom. It highlights pivotal legal developments and assesses the tension between national security, censorship, and the public's right to know. India, the world's largest democracy, enshrines freedom of speech and expression within its Constitution.
Nevertheless, the country has seen a sharp decline in press freedom, as evidenced by its plummeting World Press Freedom Index ranking. Many countries have been unable to strike a balance between state interests and individual freedoms, often tilting toward censorship under the pretext of protecting national security or maintaining public order or, perhaps, really conveniently favoring the ruling dispensation. This paper delves into India's legal framework concerning press freedom and its evolution from colonial-era laws to modern-day challenges. Additionally, it explores global parallels, assessing how other nations have protected or curtailed press freedom and seeks to uncover whether legitimate security concerns justify the curtailment of free expression.
Freedom of Speech as a Fundamental Right in India Through Article 19(1)(a), the Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. This right forms the cornerstone of democratic discourse, empowering individuals to express opinions, criticize the government, and participate in public debates. As the "fourth estate," the press plays a pivotal role in this process, acting as both a conduit of information and a watchdog over those in power. However, this freedom is not absolute. The framers of the Indian Constitution were mindful of the country's diverse and sensitive socio-political fabric. Thus, they included "reasonable restrictions" provisions under Article 19(2), which permit limitations in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, or morality.
While these restrictions aim to prevent abuse of free speech, they also, in essence, provide legal cover for censorship.
India's judiciary has historically played a significant role in interpreting the scope of Article 19(1)(a). Early rulings of the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of free expression, while later cases explored its limitations. In the landmark case Romesh Thapar vs. The State of Madras (1950) (1), the Supreme Court struck down a Madras government order that banned the circulation of Crossroads, a leftleaning journal. The court ruled that such bans violated Article 19(1)(a), stating that "freedom of speech and the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations. " This case established a strong precedent for protecting press freedom, underlining that censorship could not be justified unless it directly threatened national security or public order. However, subsequent cases have tested the boundaries of this freedom. In S. Rangarajan vs. P.
Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Supreme Court addressed the limits of free expression concerning film censorship. The court ruled that the state's restriction on a controversial Tamil film was unconstitutional; reiterating that people's fundamental right to free speech could only possibly be curtailed on the grounds of immediate threat to public order. The court remarked, "The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. " Another critical case is Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), which dealt with Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. This section, which criminalized sending "offensive messages" online, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for being overly broad and vague.
The court argued that the provision violated Article 19(1)(a) because it allowed the state to censor speech based on subjective criteria without the necessary safeguards of proportionality or clarity. This judgment was not only symbolic but also a significant victory for all free speech advocates. Global Legislations Mandating Freedom of Speech Globally, the concept of freedom of speech is deeply embedded in the legal frameworks of many nations, which recognize it as a fundamental human right. Various countries have legislated to protect this right. Such legislations, for example, include the American Convention on Human Rights – Article 13 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Article 11). While international treaties and agreements further reinforce its significance.
However, the extent of press freedom varies significantly, influenced by historical, cultural, and political factors. International Frameworks for Free Speech The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, is the foundational document enshrining freedom of speech as a universal right (2)c. Article 19 of the UDHR states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. " This declaration laid the groundwork for international norms concerning free speech, influencing countries' constitutions and legal frameworks worldwide. In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (3)ka further reinforced this right.
Article 19 of the ICCPR echoes the sentiments of the UDHR, emphasizing that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Notably, the ICCPR recognizes that while this freedom is critical, it is not absolute. Restrictions are permitted when necessary to respect the rights of others or to protect national security, public order, or public health. India is a signatory to the ICCPR, and this treaty has influenced the country's legal stance on free speech, although its domestic implementation has often been questioned. Freedom of Speech in the United States The United States is often seen as a bastion of free speech, owing to the robust protections provided by the First Amendment of its Constitution. Ratified in 1791, the First Amendment declares, "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. " This near-absolute protection of free speech has been tested through numerous landmark cases. The U. S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld that free speech, even speech that may be offensive or controversial, is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action, as set out in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). However, even in the U. S. , there are recognized limitations, such as laws against defamation, incitement to violence, and obscenity. The U. S. approach to freedom of speech prioritizes the marketplace of ideas, where even unpopular or dissenting views must be protected to ensure a functioning democracy. The legal precedent set by cases like New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan (1964) protects the press from most defamation suits brought by public officials unless actual malice is proven, reflecting the critical role of an unfettered press in holding power to account. Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom The United Kingdom, although historically home to the concept of free speech, provides more limitations than the U. S. on this right. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into U. K. law. Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees freedom of expression but permits restrictions on speech when necessary for national security, public safety, or to prevent disorder or crime. The U. K. has a more nuanced approach to hate speech and defamation. The Defamation Act of
2013 modernized defamation law, requiring claimants to demonstrate that they suffered severe
harm before suing for libel. This act's main purpose is to try to balance protecting individuals from defamatory statements and ensuring that the press and individuals can freely express opinions without fear of litigation. However, limitations such as laws governing national security, incitement of violence, and hate speech show that, while free speech is valued, it is not without boundaries. Germany's Approach to Free Speech Germany's approach to free speech is shaped by its historical experiences, particularly the rise of Nazism and the atrocities of World War II. Article 5 of Germany's Basic Law guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom to receive and impart information. However, these rights are limited by laws designed to protect individual honor and public order.
Notably, Germany has stringent laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial, and the promotion of Nazi ideology. Under Section 130 of the German Penal Code, incitement to hatred and Holocaust denial are criminal offenses. This reflects the country's commitment to preventing the rise of extremist ideologies while balancing the protection of free speech. Germany's laws demonstrate how historical contexts can shape the scope and limits of speech within a country. China and Russia: Authoritarian Controls on Speech In stark contrast to countries that actively protect freedom of speech, authoritarian regimes like China and Russia impose heavy restrictions on both free speech and press freedom.
China's Constitution theoretically guarantees freedom of speech, but in practice, the government maintains stringent control over the media, the internet, and public discourse through censorship and surveillance mechanisms. The Chinese government employs a massive apparatus to monitor and censor online content, known as the "Great Firewall," which blocks foreign news websites and social media platforms. Domestic media are tightly regulated, and journalists who challenge the government's narrative are frequently harassed or imprisoned. This control extends to suppressing dissenting voices in regions like Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The Chinese Communist Party's near unbridled controls over speech and press freedom are among the most excessive in the world, underscoring just how well authoritarian regimes can leverage state power to silence opposition.
(11) Russia's situation is similarly concerning, as President Vladimir Putin's regime has systematically dismantled independent media outlets and cracked down on dissent. Journalists in Russia face threats, legal harassment, and even violence. For example, the assassination of the investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 highlighted the dangers faced by those seeking to expose government corruption and human rights abuses. The Kremlin has used laws, for example, the notorious "foreign agents" law, as a tool to target and repress independent media organizations by forcing them to register as foreign agents and impeding their ability to operate freely.
Moreover, during Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian government enacted laws that criminalize the dissemination of "false information" about the military, going one step further to silence any critical reporting on the conflict. (12) Comparative Analysis In democratic nations like the U. S. , the U. K. , and Germany, freedom of speech is a protected right, albeit with certain restrictions. The differences between these countries primarily stem from their historical, social, and political contexts. In contrast, authoritarian regimes like China and Russia impose severe restrictions on speech, using state power to control the narrative and silence dissent.
This comparative analysis illustrates that while the right to free speech is globally recognized, its protection is not uniform, and many governments continue to wrestle with the balance between individual freedoms and state control. Sedition Law in India Sedition, defined as conduct or speech that incites rebellion against the authority of a state, has a long and controversial history in India. The sedition law, encapsulated in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was introduced by the British colonial government in 1870 to suppress dissent and quash the Indian independence movement. Over the years, this callous, colonial-era, draconian law has been widely, rightly criticized for being overly broad and susceptible to misuse, often employed to stifle political dissent and limit free speech. A total of
356 cases of sedition ] were registered, and 548 persons were arrested between 2015 and 2020,
according to statistics compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just
12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period. This
ridiculously low conviction rate hints at the extent of misuse. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code Section 124A of the IPC states that "whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life. " The term "disaffection" has been interpreted to include a lack of loyalty or feelings of enmity toward the government. During the British Raj, this law was used to prosecute Indian freedom fighters, including prominent leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi called the sedition law "the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.
" After India gained independence in 1947, the law remained in the statute books, though its application was initially limited. However, in recent years, its use has expanded significantly. The Kanhaiya Kumar Case and Sedition's Revival The most high-profile case involving sedition in recent times was that of Kanhaiya Kumar, the then-president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Students' Union. In February 2016, Kumar was arrested on charges of sedition after allegedly raising "anti-national" slogans during a student event. The incident sparked a nationwide debate about the limits of free speech, with many arguing that the sedition law was being misused to target political dissenters. Kumar's arrest led to widespread protests, with students and civil society groups demanding his release and calling for the repeal of the sedition law.
The Kanhaiya Kumar case (4) highlighted the growing concern that sedition was being used as a political tool to silence dissent. Critics argued that the law, designed to suppress revolutionary activities during colonial times, had no place in a democratic society. In response, the government defended its use of the law, once again claiming it was necessary to maintain national security and public order. Judicial Interpretations of Sedition Law The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the application of the sedition law. The landmark case Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) was instrumental in defining the limits of sedition. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that criticism of the government, however strong, could not be considered sedition unless it incited violence or had the potential to disrupt public order.
The court emphasized that only acts that involve incitement to violence or a clear intention to create public disorder would fall within the ambit of sedition. This judgment sought to balance protecting free speech and maintaining public order. However, despite the clear guidelines outlined in the Kedarnath judgment, the law continues to be used in ways that contradict these principles. In many cases, sedition charges are filed against individuals who criticize the government or participate in protests, even when there is no apparent or otherwise incitement to violence. This has led to widespread calls for the law's repeal, with many arguing that it is inconsistent with India's democratic values and constitutional protections for free speech.
The 2023 Repeal and Rebranding of Sedition In 2023, after sustained criticism from civil society, activists, and even the judiciary, the Indian government moved to repeal Section 124A of the IPC as part of a broader overhaul of colonialera laws under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill (5). This move was initially welcomed by free speech advocates, who saw it as a long-overdue step toward decolonizing India's legal system and strengthening democratic freedoms. The repeal was seen as a victory for those who had long argued that sedition law was being used to silence dissent and curb free expression. However, this victory was short-lived. Although sedition (124A of the IPC) was done away with, it was replaced by Section 152 of the BNS, which resembled the sedition law but was more draconian and sweeping in its scope and potential.
In effect, the offence of sedition has been retained under the proposed law with new nomenclature and a more expansive definition of what will constitute “Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India”. It allows the government to continue using similar tactics to suppress dissent under a different legal framework, just convenitently, now leaving a greater discretion with law enforcement agencies to decide what can be brought within the fold of the for the purposes of slapping the charges. Many legal experts and civil rights activists have expressed concern that the new law, like Section 124A, is overly broad and could be used to target political opponents, activists, and journalists. This new sedition-like provision has reignited the debate over the role of free speech in a democracy and the extent to which the state can impose restrictions in the name of national security.
The Underlying Debate: National Security vs. Free Speech The sedition law debate in India is emblematic of a broader global issue: the tension between national security and individual freedoms. Governments often argue that restrictions on free speech are necessary to protect national security, prevent violence, and maintain public order. However, free speech advocates contend that such laws are frequently misused to suppress dissent and stifle legitimate criticism of those in power. In India, the sedition law has been invoked in a wide range of cases, from student protests to social media posts critical of the government. The law's broad language makes it a powerful tool for silencing dissent, even when there is no direct threat to national security or public order.
This has led many to call for not just the repeal of the sedition law but a broader reevaluation of laws restricting free speech in the name of national security. The challenge for India, and indeed for democracies worldwide, is to find a balance between protecting national security and upholding the fundamental right to free speech. As the sedition debate continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether India will embrace greater protections for free speech or continue to use restrictive laws to maintain control over public discourse. The Role of the Press in Democracy: Achievements and Contributions The press, often called the "Fourth Estate," plays a vital role in the functioning of democratic societies.
It acts as a bridge between the government and the public, providing citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions, hold public officials accountable, and participate meaningfully in the political process. A free and independent press is essential for preserving democracy, as it promotes transparency, exposes corruption, and encourages public debate on important issues. The press has historically been a powerful force in shaping public opinion and driving political change in India. From the struggle for independence to the present day, Indian journalism has made significant contributions to the nation's democratic process. However, the press has also faced significant challenges, including government censorship, intimidation, and violence against journalists.
Despite these obstacles, the press has continued to play a critical role in safeguarding democracy in India and worldwide. Historical Role of the Press in India The Indian press has a long and storied history, with its roots traced back to pre-independence. During the British colonial rule, the press played a crucial role in mobilizing public opinion against the colonial government and advocating for independence. Newspapers like The Hindu, Amrita Bazar Patrika, and Kesari, edited by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, were instrumental in spreading nationalist ideas and exposing the injustices of British rule. The British government, recognizing the power of the press, frequently imposed restrictions, such as the Vernacular Press Act of 1878 (9), which sought to suppress Indian-language newspapers critical of the colonial government.
Despite these challenges, the Indian press resisted censorship and advocated for freedom. One of the most significant contributions of the press during this period was its role in the Non- Cooperation Movement and the Civil Disobedience Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. Newspapers and journals became critical tools for spreading the message of non-violent resistance and raising awareness about the oppressive policies of the British government. The press's role in shaping public opinion and mobilizing mass movements during the struggle for independence underscored its importance as a force for political change. The Press During the Emergency (1975-1977) One of India's most significant and darkest periods for press freedom came during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from 1975 to 1977.
During this time, the Indian government suspended civil liberties, imposed strict censorship on the media, and arrested political opponents. The government sought to control the narrative by curbing dissent and suppressing criticism. Censorship during the Emergency was enforced with an iron hand. Newspapers were required to submit all articles to government censors before publication, and any content deemed critical of the government was either altered or suppressed entirely. The Indian Express and The Statesman, two of the most prominent newspapers in the country, printed blank editorials as a form of protest against government censorship. Meanwhile, smaller publications and individual journalists who defied the government were harassed or arrested. Despite heavy censorship, some journalists and publications continued to resist.
Kuldip Nayar, a prominent journalist, played a crucial role in documenting and reporting on the abuses of the Emergency despite the risk of reprisal. His work, along with the efforts of other courageous journalists, helped bring to light the government's excesses. The Emergency period remains a stark reminder of the fragility of press freedom and the dangers of state censorship. It also highlights the importance of a free press in resisting authoritarianism and holding the government accountable to its citizens. Investigative Journalism and its Impact Investigative journalism has long been critical to the press's role in a democracy. By exposing corruption and the sheer abuse of power, investigative journalists help ensure transparency and accountability in government and other institutions.
In India, investigative journalism has led to significant political and social consequences, often forcing reforms and legal action. One of India's most notable examples of investigative journalism is the 2001 Tehelka exposé(6) 66, which revealed corruption in defense procurement deals. Using undercover journalism, Tehelka reporters recorded defense officials and political leaders accepting bribes to facilitate defense contracts. The exposé created a massive political scandal, leading to resignations and widespread public outrage. The investigation highlighted the power of the press to expose corruption at the highest levels and hold government officials accountable. Another significant case was the Indian Express exposé on the 2G spectrum allocation scam in
2011. The investigation revealed massive irregularities and corruption in allocating
telecommunications licenses, which led to estimated losses of billions of dollars to the exchequer. The scandal resulted in the arrest and conviction of several high-profile politicians and officials, further demonstrating the press's ability to effect change through investigative reporting. Globally, investigative journalism has played a similar role in uncovering scandals that have led to significant political and legal consequences. The Watergate scandal in the United States, uncovered by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post, led to President Richard Nixon's resignation. Similarly, the Panama Papers investigation, led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), revealed global tax evasion and corruption, leading to political upheavals and reforms in several countries.
These examples show the importance of investigative journalism in upholding democratic principles. By exposing corruption and abuses of power, journalists act as watchdogs of democracy, ensuring that those in power are held accountable for their actions. Contemporary Challenges Facing the Press in India Despite its vital role in democracy, India's press still faces numerous challenges today. One of the most pressing issues is the increasing threat of violence and harassment against journalists. India has consistently ranked poorly in the World Press Freedom Index, with journalists facing threats, physical attacks, and even murder for their work. The assassination of journalist Gauri Lankesh (8) in 2017, for example, sent shockwaves across the country and highlighted the dangers faced by those who challenge the status quo.
In addition to physical threats, journalists also face legal harassment. Draconian laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC) are often used to target journalists who report on sensitive issues or criticize the government. The arrest of journalist Siddique Kappan in 2020, who was charged under UAPA while covering the Hathras rape case, is a stark example of how such laws can be weaponized against the press, severing not only their right to report but also the public's right to know. Moreover, the increasing concentration of media ownership has raised concerns about the independence of the press. Many of India's largest media organizations are owned by powerful corporate conglomerates, leading to concerns about editorial independence and the influence of business interests on news coverage.
Critics argue that this concentration of ownership limits the diversity of viewpoints in the media and reduces the space for critical investigative journalism. The Importance of an Independent Press An independent press is essential for the proper functioning of a democracy. It serves as a check on government power, ensures that citizens are informed about the actions of their leaders, and fosters public debate on important issues. Without a free and independent press, democracy is weakened, as citizens are denied access to the information they need to make informed decisions. In India, the press has historically played a vital role in shaping public opinion, exposing government misconduct, and advocating for social and political change. Despite its many challenges today, the press continues to be a powerful force for accountability and transparency.
However, the increasing threats to press freedom in the form of violence, censorship, and corporate control pose significant risks to the future of democracy in India. To safeguard democracy, the government, civil society, and media organizations must work together to protect press freedom. This includes reforming laws that target journalists, addressing the issue of media ownership concentration, and ensuring that journalists can work without fear of violence or harassment. Only through these efforts can the press fulfill its essential role in a democratic society. Despite the press's longstanding role as a guardian of democracy, the contemporary challenges facing journalism in India are unprecedented.
India's decline in the World Press Freedom Index is a stark reflection of the increasing threats to press freedom, ranging from direct violence against journalists to legal intimidation and governmental control over media narratives. India was ranked 161st out of 180 countries in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, an alarming drop that raises concerns about the future of independent journalism. Journalists critical of the government, such as Gauri Lankesh, have been victims of targeted violence, while media outlets that question government policies face shutdowns or intimidation. The increasing use of draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to silence journalists and activists has exacerbated concerns about press freedom. Journalists reporting on sensitive topics, such as human rights violations in Kashmir or the d' protests, face frequent legal harassment.
The relationship between the Indian government and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook has also become increasingly strained. The government's efforts to control the narrative by regulating online content have raised fears of censorship. (10) The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, have granted the government broad powers to censor online content, ostensibly to prevent the spread of fake news. Critics argue that these rules undermine the freedom of speech and press by giving the government sweeping authority to remove or block content deemed "against the interests of the state. " Conclusion Press freedom is a critical pillar of any functioning democracy. The erosion of this right, particularly in India, signals a disturbing trend toward authoritarianism and the stifling of dissent.
From colonial-era sedition laws to contemporary censorship mechanisms, the Indian state has long struggled to balance national security concerns with individual freedoms. While legitimate restrictions on speech may be necessary in extreme cases, the growing culture of censorship undermines the very foundations of India's democracy. As the "Fourth Estate," the press plays a vital role in informing the public, holding governments accountable, and fostering democratic debate. However, the increasing threats faced by journalists, both from the state and private actors, endanger the independence of the media and, by extension, the health of the democracy itself. It is crucial for India to enact reforms that protect press freedom, including repealing draconian laws, ensuring journalists' safety, and resisting media ownership.
Only by safeguarding the freedom of the press can India continue to uphold its democratic ideals. The global context of press freedom is similarly troubling, with countries like China and Russia demonstrating how state control over the media can lead to the suppression of dissent and the propagation of authoritarian rule. India, as the world's largest democracy, has a unique responsibility to set an example in defending free speech and press freedom. The future of its democracy depends on it.
Works Cited (1) ROMESH THAPPAR Vs RESPONDENT. (n. d. ). Retrieved from Supreme Court of India: https://main. sci. gov. in/judgment/judis/1245. pdf (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n. d. ). Retrieved from United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner: https://www. ohchr. org/en/universaldeclaration-of-human-rights (3) International Covenant Civil And Political Rights. (n. d. ). Retrieved from United Nations Human Rights Officer of the High Commissioner: https://www. ohchr. org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/internationalcovenant-civil-and-political-rights (4) JNU sedition case. (2021, February 16). Retrieved from The Hindu: https://www. thehindu. com/news/national/jnu-sedition-case-delhi-court-takescognisance-of-charge-sheet-against-kanhaiya-kumar-others/article33848512. ece (5) The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (n. d. ).
Retrieved from Ministry of Home Affairs: https://www. mha. gov. in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024. pdf (6) Tehelka expose. (2010, August 31). Retrieved from The Hindu: https://www. thehindu. com/news/cities/Delhi/Tehelka-expose-trial-tocontinue/article16150949. ece (7) India's Press Freedom has rapidly declined in recent years. (2024, May 15). Retrieved from The Hindu: https://www. thehindu. com/data/india-press-freedom-has-rapidlydeclined-in-recent-years-data/article68160411. ece (8) Gauri Lankesh Murder Case. (2024, March 2). Retrieved from The Indian Express: https://indianexpress. com/article/india/gauri-lankesh-murder-case-sc-issues-notice-toaccused-in-karnataka-governments-plea-against-his-bail-9191830/ (9) Vernacular Press Act. (n. d. ). Retrieved from Britannica: https://www. britannica.
com/topic/Vernacular-Press-Act (10) The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code). Rules, 2021. (2023, April 6). Retrieved from MeitY: https://www. meity. gov. in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Int ermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20 Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006. 04. 2023%29-. pdf (10) X 'disagrees' with Centre's Censorship. (n. d. ). Retrieved from The Indian Express: https://indianexpress. com/article/india/farmers-protest-x-twitter-accounts-block- 9174547/ (11) China trying to develop world ‘built on censorship and surveillance’. (2024, May 2). Retrieved from ALJAZEERA: https://www. aljazeera. com/news/2024/5/2/chinatrying-to-develop-world-built-on-censorship-and-surveillance (12) Russia media guide. (2023, March 6). Retrieved from BBC: https://www. bbc. com/news/world-europe-17840134