Context

• The crackdown on journalists during protests organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), has reignited the debate over press freedom, journalistic identity and government accreditation.
• Freelance and independent journalists were removed and detained, while only those accredited by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) or Directorate of Information and Publicity (DIP) were allowed to cover the protests.
• The incident raises two fundamental questions: Who qualifies as a journalist, and who has the authority to recognise one?
• Resolving these questions is crucial to protecting freedom of expression while ensuring professional accountability.

The Crackdown on Journalists and Freedom of Expression

• Police Action During the Protests
  • The CJP protests in July over the NEET paper leak and in October over the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation attracted journalists from established media organisations, freelancers and digital content creators.
  • During the protests, police removed several independent journalists and detained them.
  • This action raises concerns about equal access to public events and freedom of the press.
  • Independent journalists frequently document demonstrations, report police actions and present perspectives overlooked by mainstream media.
• Judicial Debate and Competing Concerns
  • During a Public Interest Litigation seeking protection for freelance journalists and content creators, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether freedom of expression entitled every citizen to become a journalist.
  • Senior advocate Indira Jaisingh advocated a national protocol preventing police from obstructing journalists carrying valid employer-issued identification.
  • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, warned that individuals could misuse journalistic claims to create sensationalised or one-sided social media content for popularity and financial gain.

Recognising Journalists

• The Legal Definition of a Working Journalist
  • The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, defines a working journalist as someone whose principal occupation is journalism and who is employed in newspaper, electronic or digital media.
  • Those working in managerial or administrative capacities are excluded.
  • The Central and State governments provide accreditation to eligible journalists, freelancers, camerapersons and technicians.
• Government Accreditation and Its Limitations
  • In Delhi-NCR, the PIB facilitates coverage of the Central government, while the DIP provides accreditation for covering the Delhi government.
  • However, accreditation depends on eligibility criteria and quotas linked to newspaper circulation, news agency subscriptions, television licences and digital platforms' unique visitors.
  • Consequently, not every journalist receives official accreditation, including some working in recognised media organisations. Freelancers and journalists associated with smaller digital platforms face additional difficulties.
  • This creates a distinction between professional journalistic work and official recognition.
  • Making accreditation the sole criterion for covering public events risks excluding legitimate journalists and restricting access to information.

The Way Forward

• The Need for a National Media Council
  • A proposed solution is establishing an independent national media council or commission to recognise journalists across different platforms.
  • Institutions such as the Bar Council of India and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India regulate their respective professions.
  • A similar media council could establish transparent recognition procedures for working journalists, freelancers, camerapersons and technicians.
  • It could maintain a national register, issue professional identification, establish ethical guidelines and provide mechanisms for addressing complaints against journalists and authorities.
  • The Press Club of India previously drafted a Media Transparency (and Accountability) Bill, proposing a national media council. Other journalists' organisations have also demanded similar reforms.
• Balancing Professional Accountability and Press Freedom
  • Social media has blurred the boundaries between journalists, influencers and content creators.
  • Although digital platforms have democratised information, they have also facilitated misinformation, sensationalism and unverified reporting.
  • A national media council could promote transparent accreditation, ethical standards and accountability.
  • Nevertheless, it must safeguard editorial independence and remain free from political interference.
  • Government accreditation should not become the sole criterion for practising journalism or reporting public events.
  • Restrictions should be based on legitimate security requirements, objective rules and applicable law, rather than arbitrary distinctions between accredited and non-accredited journalists.
  • Any framework must protect journalists against intimidation, unlawful detention and obstruction while ensuring that restrictions are necessary, proportionate and legally justified.

Conclusion

• The detention of independent journalists during the CJP protests demonstrates the need to reconsider how journalists are recognised and protected in India.
• Existing legal definitions and accreditation systems do not adequately address the challenges of freelance journalism and digital media.
• An independent, transparent and inclusive national media council could bridge this gap, provided it promotes professional standards without monopolising the right to report.
• Ultimately, democracy requires both responsible journalism and an independent press.