The TLDR: India has never been a hospitable space for journalism. But over the course of this year—while we’ve been distracted by the pandemic—it has become increasingly risky to write or say anything critical of the government (state or union). No one is safe, be it a Vinod Dua or Rajdeep Sardesai—unless you are a right-leaning website or channel.

First, a few quick stats

India is ranked 142 out of 180 on the global press freedom index. We slipped two places this year. The Committee to Protect Journalists placed us at the bottom of its list of countries with the worst record of bringing killers of journalists to justice—for the 12th time this year. The Coalition of Women in Journalism documented 145 threats and intimidation against women journalists from January 2020 to April 2020 around the world. India was #3 on that list. The good news: No journalist was killed last year. 

When the global press freedom index was released this year, Information Minister Prakash Javadekar promised: “[W]e will expose, sooner than later, those surveys that tend to portray bad picture about ‘Freedom of Press’ in India.”

This is sedition!

Vinod Dua: is a widely respected and well-known Hindi journalist—and has a hugely popular YouTube show. Over the past four months, he has been charged twice—once by the Delhi police and then again by the Himachal Pradesh police. And in quick succession!

The Delhi case: In early June, he was charged with being a public nuisance, creating public mischief, creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. All this based on a single complaint by BJP spokesperson Naveen Kumar who took objection to Dua’s commentary on the Delhi violence—on a YouTube episode that aired on March 11! The Delhi High court issued a stay on the FIR, “noting that the steps taken so far by the police in the case do not appear to be in consonance with the law and ‘do not inspire much confidence.’”

The Himachal case: Within days—yes, days—of the stay, the Himachal Pradesh police arrived on Dua’s doorstep. This time, he was charged with sedition and told to appear at the Kumarsain police station—where someone called Ajay Shyam Vill had filed the complaint. Don’t know where Kumarsain is? Likely neither did Dua. No one knows who Vill is either (though he claims to be a BJP leader). 

But the charge of sedition has stuck. This time, Dua is on the hook for a March 30 episode that focuses on the government’s handling of the pandemic. The Solicitor General and Vill’s lawyer have variously argued that Dua:

• Incited migrant workers to panic during the lockdown; 
• Claimed that “Narendra Modi has used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes;” 
• And created panic by “spreading false information that the government does not have enough testing facilities” for Covid-19. (You can watch the episode here)

Point to note: Dua is also charged in a number of other FIRs in Maharashtra and West Bengal. For some reason, many people have decided to take great offence at his journalism all at the same time.

You’re a liar!

Auqib Javeed: is a reporter for Article 14. He wrote a piece in August on efforts by the Kashmir police to silence Kashmiris on Twitter (read it here). This was not a big scoop. And the story had been picked up before by The Print and others. The story also quoted the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the Cyber Wing. It used an image taken from Daily Mail of the Cyber Wing. 

Yesterday, he wrote an account of what happened next. Javeed was summoned by the Cyber Wing with regard to the story. He arrived in the company of two other journalists for protection—but was called in for an interview alone. Then this happened:

“I heard the sounds of boots approaching, and as I turned to see who it was, a masked policeman slapped me hard on my left cheek. He did sound like a local. ‘Kis liye aaya hai tu (why have you come?),’ he demanded. Once I recovered from the shock of the slap, I said, ‘SP saab has called me.’ He slapped me hard again and left.”

After that unprovoked attack, Javeed was taken in to meet the very SP who he’d quoted. The SP abused and threatened him and his family—and insisted that the story be taken down. His greatest objection: The photo of the Cyber Wing was incorrect.

The outcome: the story headline was changed and photo deleted. Also deleted: Javeed’s WhatsApp conversation with the SP on his phone. The Srinagar police have denied the entire incident. 

Key point to note: The state police now routinely targets better-known Kashmiri journalists—including The Hindu correspondent Peerzada Ashiq who explains why:

“Ashiq sees a careful pattern behind the police’s targeting of a reporter with a national newspaper and freelancers contributing to national and international publications. ‘When reporters in the district see well-known journalists being booked, it impacts their thought process.’”

Supriya Sharma: the executive editor of Scroll was charged under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act—and accused of defamation and committing a negligent act likely to spread the disease. The reason: She’d written a series on the dire state of villagers in Varanasi during the pandemic. One of the women Sharma quoted—and has on tape—now claims that her statements were fabricated. Her complaint states:

“By writing that I and my children went hungry during the lockdown, Sharma mocked at my impoverishment, my caste, because of which I have suffered mentally. It (the report) has hurt my standing in society.”

Point to note: A report in June noted that at least 55 journalists in UP were arrested, charged or received summons or show cause notices, or physically assaulted between March 25 and May 31—over the course of just two-plus months!

The ever-present threat

Most recently, the Attorney General of India refused to approve a contempt case filed against India Today anchor Rajdeep Sardesai. A 20-year old from Panipat filed a complaint accusing him of "willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders/judgment" passed by the Supreme Court in the Prashant Bhushan case. The evidence: a series of innocuous tweets.

What’s really scary: It could easily have gone the other way. 

Compare and contrast

In stark contrast, complaints against right-leaning websites and channels have been summarily dismissed by the courts. 

• The Supreme Court issued a stay in the case of TV journalist Amish Devgan—who was charged with hurting religious sentiments. He used the term ‘Lootera Chishti’ for the revered Sufi medieval saint Moinuddin Chishti during a TV debate—but claimed he had meant to say ‘Alauddin Khilji’. 
• The highest court also issued a stay on FIRs against OpIndia in West Bengal. The evidence: articles that claimed CM Mamata Banerjee planned to convert Bengal into an Islamic state; the government was secretly disposing of bodies of dead Covid patients; and azaan was played at a Durga Puja pandal.
• Last but not least, the Mumbai High Court issued a stay in the case against Arnab Goswami who claimed that Sonia Gandhi had orchestrated the lynching of sadhus in Palghar. Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued stays in other related cases against him—accompanied by a stirring defense of the freedom of press.

Point to note: The Supreme Court has framed the ongoing case against Sudarshan TV as a constitutional debate, weighing the freedom of the press vs the right to equality. The series—which has been blocked from airing—alleges a ‘UPSC jihad’ by Muslims aimed at taking over the civil services. 

The government has intervened on behalf of Sudarshan TV—insisting that the court should instead impose restrictions on digital media: “Apart from spreading venomous hatred, deliberate and intended instigation to not only cause violence but even terrorism it is also capable of indulging in tarnishing the image of individuals and institutions.”

The bottomline: Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde said the following of the sedition law—but it holds every bit as true for every other law in the book, all of which are deployed against ‘useful suspects’:

“These cases are often invoked against show-piece dissenters so that the rest fall in line. Governments are not really interested in convictions. In many of these cases, sanctions are also not given, but it is a useful tool in the hands of the local policemen who can first register a case. It’s also a useful tool in the hands of a local leader or the head of some faction who wants to shut down a particular dissenter in the locality. He can just rush to a police station, file a complaint, and urge them to take action. He then gets his nationalistic brownie points. And the speaker is often left wondering whether that case will proceed further. It has a chilling effect on people who think and speak freely. I don’t think any government is interested in actual prosecution.”

Reading list

The Diplomat offers a good overview of the growing threat to press freedom. Deutsche Welle focuses on increased harassment during the pandemic. The Wire looks at the inconsistent ways in which the courts have dealt with FIRs against journalists. The Print looks at how the Supreme Court is dealing with Sudarshan TV. You can read the offending Article 14 story here—or watch the Vinod Dua episode that triggered the FIR.