NEW DELHI: The media cannot perform their role under restrictions, fear or influence, and the most serious threats to press freedom arise not from direct censorship but from regulations, ownership rules, licensing laws and economic policies, Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna said on Friday.
Speaking at the presentation ceremony of the IPI India Excellence in Journalism Award 2025, Justice Nagaratna, who is set to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027, said the recent trend of attempts to capture the press has not only economic underpinnings but also political connotations.
“A journalistic outlet may be legally free to criticize the government, but economically constrained in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable,” she added.
The only female judge of the Supreme Court at present said that freedom of the press in India occupies an interesting constitutional position and this right emerges from the interplay between Article 19 – freedom of speech and expression and Article 19 – freedom to practice any profession or carry on any profession, trade or business.
Justice Nagaratna, who was the chief guest, stressed that freedom of the press in India is simultaneously protected from two different constitutional angles. Former Supreme Court Justice M P Lokur and Vijay Joshi, Editor-in-Chief, Press Trust of India, also spoke at the event.
The IPI-India Award was presented to Vaishnavi Rathore of Scroll.in for her reporting on the Greater Nicobar Island Development Project. The award consists of a cash prize of $2 lakh and a cup and a quote.
In her speech, Justice Nagaratna said that the most serious threats to press freedom are likely to arise not from direct censorship under Article 19, but from regulations justified under Article 19.
“Ownership rules, licensing laws, advertising and tax policies, and antitrust law are increasingly defensible as economic regulation, even when they have profound implications for editorial independence,” she said. “This allows the state to influence journalism indirectly while maintaining formal compliance with Article 19.”
The judge further said that the constitutional challenge was to prevent regulation from hollowing out Articles 19 and 19, so the principled approach required recognizing that where speech and commerce intersect, speech must prevail.
She stressed that “a journalistic outlet may be legally free to criticize a government, but it is economically constrained in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable. Editors recognize the risk that critical coverage, for example, could lead to the withdrawal of lucrative advertising contracts, especially in current times when governments, PSUs and political parties compete with each other in visual propaganda through the press.”
Justice Nagarathna noted that the law may not silence the press; But they may shape the conditions under which speech is created and some narratives become safer, and others riskier, long before publishing decisions are consciously discussed in editorial boards.
“A free press does not arise by decree,” she stressed, “but rather develops through the interaction between readers, writers and editors. Attempts to improve it through central control, whether political or bureaucratic, undermine the very spontaneity that gives it vitality. The recent trend of attempts to seize control of the press has not only economic foundations, but also political overtones.”
Justice Nagaratna said that while media outlets may remain editorially independent on paper, their ability to pursue oppositional journalism is limited by the interests of owners whose economic or political relationships may be threatened by such reporting.
“This raises a normative question: If press freedom depends on economic viability in competitive markets, can it truly be free? Will there be a free and balanced press? The press may be free from the state, but it depends on the power of corporations, which in turn may depend on state patronage,” she said.
Justice Nagaratna stressed that the challenge to a free press cannot be upheld but must be effectively addressed as soon as possible, “Therefore, the restrictions on free and frank reporting and the emergence of what I call ‘selective journalism’ must, for lack of a better expression, be curbed.”
She stressed that freedom of the press is not only a constitutional right but also a moral practice, and that the focus of journalists’ moral authority are the twin ideals of “objectivity and impartiality.”
Justice Nagaratna added that civil society must realize that independent reporting is a public good worth paying for, and on the other hand, good journalism does not depend on good faith alone.
“When someone subscribes, they are really saying that this kind of reporting is worth supporting,” she said. “Journalism supported by its readers is always better placed to serve the public interest and fend off political pressures.”
Lauding the role of the media in highlighting environment-related issues, Justice Lokur said such stories generate awareness among people who perhaps can form a pressure group that may eventually force the authorities to conserve and protect our environment.
In his welcome address, Joshi said that there are moments when institutions speak loudly, and there are moments when they stand firm.
He added: “Journalism at its best does both. It asks difficult questions, not to hinder progress, but to improve it.”
Joshi added that in a vibrant democracy like ours, development is often described in superlatives, bigger, faster or greater, but journalism has a different vocabulary.
“He asks, ‘What is the cost of development, who is this development for? And who decides what to provide,'” he said.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
