Report of the Index Monitoring Cell || my response to the draft report

From P. Sainath, February 22, 2021

Dear Colleagues,

I have read very carefully the draft report made out by the sub-group of the Index
Monitoring Cell responsible for the report and thank them for their effort.

Stated objectives:

I think it is important to recall here the understanding we arrived at in our very first
meeting. I had referred to two different points in the committee’s agenda.

Agenda 2: which spoke of “Understanding the (reporters san frontiers) world press
freedom index and India’s position in the index” and

Agenda 4: which said we were to “Review and discuss the proposed action to
improve the media freedom in our country.”
The idea of the report, as stated in its objectives section, is to analyse the Press
Freedom Index (of Reporters sans frontiers), and India’s performance in it with a
view to identify areas of strengths and concern related to press freedom in India.
This deeper understanding was to eventually lead to a better ranking for India by way
of an enhanced freedom of press.
It does not actually do any of this.

The missing focus on the state of press/media freedom in India:

I was very clear that it was Agenda 4 that mattered to me and that my joining the
committee was to pursue that agenda, not to set up a rebuttal of the dismal ranking
of 142 that India had on the RSF’s Index. Even if we take that Index as a central issue
for the IMC’s agenda, it’s worth recalling that India stood at an already embarrassing
106th place in 2005. It then fell 16 places to 122 in 2010 and to 140 in 2014. There’s a
brief uptick in 2015 and in 2017 to rank 136 – possibly because of a very sharp rise in
repression in a few other countries. And then we sank to 142 in 2020.
To be honest, I think a fair and honest ranking done today would see India plumbing
the depths below 142 – but the rankings, while interesting, were never of primary
importance to me. My focus was on actually studying the state of press/media
freedom in India and coming up with remedies the government (and corporate
media owners) could introduce to alter the situation. How our own journalists and
citizens experience those freedoms or the lack of them is really of primary
importance.
The right to dissent:
I held that in looking at the issue of press freedom in India, we would have to
establish as axiomatic that dissent and the right to dissent would be central.
As I said: “I think the committee should go on record in saying that a central element
of press freedom is the recognition of the right to dissent [of the journalist and other
citizens], that applies to and should be accepted by both government and media
owners…The right to dissent is very central...You know there are people filing FIRs
and taking legal action against journalists [and other citizens] under the epidemics
act, disaster act, sedition laws. We are shutting down the internet for 6 months or
more for whole regions.”
I pointed out that these tactics were and remain in use, and even if they would not
stand up in court, would have the impact of maligning, vilifying and intimidating
journalists.
At this point, the Chairman kindly said: “I would just like to say that our purpose is
to study freedom of the press. That is the main subject of this committee….” I heartily
concurred with his statement. We also agreed that regressive laws which journalists
were being persecuted under had to be seen as affecting all citizens, not just
mediapersons. That we could not discuss them in isolation – or as only
pertaining to journalists.

Attacks on journalists and the question of state accountability:

The draft report, sorry to say, fails to get anywhere close to these objectives. Perhaps
the most unacceptable aspects are a) there is no description, no recounting or
measuring of the situation on the ground in relation to press freedom and, b) there is
not a single mention of ‘accountability’ of the State and governments or any level of
authorities. There is no mention of accountability in relation to corporate media
owners either – though the disturbing trend of sackings, retrenchments and forced
‘voluntary’ resignations did find mention in committee meetings.
Early on during the lockdown last March, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in fact
listed the media as being among essential services. The draft report does not seem
anywhere to contextualise the ironic and astonishing rise in attacks on journalists
that comes after their being declared an essential service by the nation’s prime
minister.
These serious shortcomings, among others, render the draft report anodyne to the
point of being irrelevant. The idea that there can be a healthy tension between the
state and journalists in a democracy – without vindictive and arbitrary punishments
being meted out by the one to the other – finds little mention in the draft report.
It is good that the Committee (at least, based on a couple of appendices to the draft
report) proposes we do our own research and surveys assessing press freedom in
India. This is a positive thing and should happen. But it would lose meaning if we are
not prepared to speak plainly, transparently and honestly of the situation as it
actually exists.
A committee (or ‘cell’) convened on the issue of press freedom cannot function in
silence or secrecy. We have to be upfront and state plainly and publicly the situation
as it exists. If we censor ourselves – imagine what that says about the state of
freedom in the larger media canvas of the country.
The report seems to understand ‘plurality’ as the number of broadcasters, viewers,
newspapers, readers, languages, publications, digital revolution and penetration. It
seems to believe this is evidence of vibrant diversity.
Ground realities as they exist:
Unfortunately, the draft report seems to believe a lot of the problems arise from our
inability to communicate the good things we have done on press freedom – and our
failure to rebut a western bias. Meanwhile the situation on the ground – nowhere
reflected in the report – is a lot worse than it was from the time of our first meeting
in May 2020.
Yet, the report insists: “Compared to the actual situation regarding press freedom in
India, the country has been ranked relatively low on most of these indices, thereby
projecting a global picture that is not in line with the ground situation in India.”
It speaks of how much positive work has been done for the safety of journalists in
Kashmir. Does that include Kashmiri journalists – don’t they have a very different
experience from the one the report is trying to establish?
Internet shutdowns:
The draft report says: “The complex security situation of Jammu & Kashmir makes it
unique with regard to press freedom. The security personnel make tireless
efforts to ensure the physical security of journalists and the wider
public (PS: emphasis added) from foreign-bred terrorist elements in the region. The
measures taken in this regard often lead to restricted permissions for travel and
frequent internet shutdowns, which are portrayed in the western media as violation
of press freedom.”
Does that include the safety of Kashmiri journalists? Or are they all “foreign-bred
terrorist elements?” Their awful experiences are so widely known – yet completely
absent from our appreciation of the ‘ground situation.’ And internet shutdowns are
not just portrayed as violations of press freedom in the western media. They are very
grave violations with severe consequences in social, economic, political and human
rights spheres. Also, they are a very feudal form of collective punishment – punishing
an entire region, once a state, for things claimed to be the doings of a handful of
foreign-bred terrorists.
That is the only mention of journalism there – under ‘Press Freedom in Jammu &
Kashmir’ – apart from which the word appears twice in relation to lists in languages
and publications. Is this the ground reality we perceive in Kashmir?
In fact, the draft report – even the suggestions we made for it in the meetings – is
being swiftly overtaken by events on the ground.
False arrests, fake charges, and thought police:
What was and is the ground situation in India?
I had pointed out in our meeting of July 16 that “The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897,
has been used against Andrew Sam Raja Pandian in Tamil Nadu. That appears to be
the only time ever in India's independent history that a journalist has ever been
booked under this law. Prior to Independence, the British used sections of that very
Act to prosecute Bal Gangadhar Tilak…”
Pandian, and his colleagues Aruldas and Balaji came under fire after a story was
published in their portal SimpliCiti, saying that doctors were facing shortage of food
and PPE kits in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, among other things.
Now that was the situation in thousands of hospitals and clinics across the country.
Health workers have died because of it. Yet, Pandian was arrested under sections of
the IPC, and under the Epidemic Diseases Act.”
There was also the case, last April, of the freelance journalist Zubair Ahmed being
arrested in the Andaman Islands for a simple tweet: “Can someone explain why
families are placed under home quarantine for speaking over phone with Covid
patients?” This related to an astonishing development in the islands where people
who had no physical contact with relatives testing positive for the coronavirus –
ended up in quarantine after simply speaking to them on the phone. Ahmed was
accused by authorities of spreading panic and fomenting communal tensions. Also
charged with spreading fake news – though the local daily Andaman Chronicle
reported on a very similar case even before his tweet without similar consequences.
Today, even media performers like stand-up comics are coming under severe attack.
Comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested for jokes he had never made. Four others
were arrested alongside him. It was a struggle for him to get bail – even though the
police admitted to having zero evidence of any crime on his part. That this young
man was booked for “hurting religious sentiments” with comments he never made,
should cause us to reflect on the direction in which this nation’s press freedoms are
hurtling.
One unnamed and therefore unverified police plug finding its way into a section of
the media was that yes, he may not have actually said anything, but he intended to
make such comments. So now you can be jailed for your thoughts. You can even be
jailed for what the police or other authorities claim were your thoughts –
regardless of whether those claims are bunkum.
So it is not just dissent that gets criminalised but even the right to simply to think for
oneself.
No ‘pre or post censorship in India’:
In light of this, it seems very odd that the draft report quotes Art. 19 of the
Constitution of India – and goes on to say: “There is no pre or post censorship on
any news report in India, subject to the reasonable restrictions provided on free
speech provided in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.” Incidentally that is the one and
only instance where the word ‘censorship’ occurs in the 45-page draft report. And
that reference asserts the absence of it! When censorship of multiple kinds, including
a crackdown on the presumed private thoughts of an individual unfolds all around
us, this claim of ‘no pre or post censorship’ seems far removed from reality.
Journalist Siddique Kappan has been in jail in Uttar Pradesh since October 5, 2020
after he went there to cover the Hathras atrocity – but the first call he was allowed to
make to his family was almost a month later, on November 2. It took weeks for his
lawyer – who is also the lawyer for the Kerala Union of Working Journalists – to get
in touch with him. Kappan, a freelance journalist who writes for Malayalam portals
and magazines was arrested, astonishingly, under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA) and for sedition, for allegedly attempting to create social
tension.
There is not a shred of evidence for any of this. But perhaps none is required – since
the new playbook of the police is: conspiracy (which in an overwhelming share of
cases, is never proven, or thrown out of court after years – but which allows for the
life of the individual to be destroyed through prolonged incarceration and character
assassination). This sends out a chilling message to thousands of other journalists,
several of whom tell me that the thought of when their turn will come pushes them
towards self-censorship.
Today, on the grounds of conspiracy, the Delhi Police can file cases at will against
anyone it chooses to hound, in connection with ongoing investigations in the capital
– regardless of whether the persons it goes after were anywhere near the city at the
time, or were in any way involved in any of the events or incidents the DP claim to be
investigating.
A newer tactic is the bringing of sometimes unspecified charges of serious economic
offences – such as the raids carried out by the Enforcement Directorate against the
independent media group NewsClick. The group were apparently not given even a
copy of the search warrant flashed at them. This is very similar to the raids on the
well-known human rights organisation Amnesty International which has seen its
bank accounts – with crores of rupees, frozen.
Charges in such cases can be filed even a year later, meanwhile the affected
organisation and its personnel, or journalists and media workers in the case of the
NewsClick, can be subjected to all kinds of harassment. Even as unsourced stories of
‘money laundering’ appear in pro-government publications clearly intending to
damage the reputation and standing of independent media and journalists. Small
independent groups can be driven to bankruptcy. Which means that even when they
are proven innocent (of what charges - they are yet to learn about), it will be unlikely
that they can continue their journalism.
The actions vis a vis Twitter these past few months, with that social media giant
blocking the accounts of almost anyone the government targets (after making a quick
and pathetic pretence of defiance,) has seen some veteran journalists like Mrinal
Pande, Rajdeep Sardesai and several others come under fire. The latter has been
subjected to public humiliation via a suspension handed down to him by India
Today. It does not matter that we may disagree on our assessments of these
journalists – what’s happening is wrong, repulsive and retrograde. And the IC’s
report should say so.
Freedom of expression for all:
The more recent arrest of 21-year-old Disha Ravi takes the abuse of law to silence
dissent, to yet another level. The Delhi Police had already outlined that level when
they pronounced the existence of a ‘global conspiracy’ driven by a couple of tweets by
a rhythm and blues singer and an 18-year-old schoolgirl climate activist. The 21-year-
old Disha then becomes a ‘key figure’ in this two-tweet conspiracy and is arrested in
Bengaluru and whisked off to the capital by the Delhi Police in what some have
described as an abduction.
Sure, Ravi is not a journalist – but recall that we correctly agreed that we would look
at regressive laws and their abuse in enforcement as something affecting the freedom
of expression of all citizens, not just journalists.
Accountability of Police Authorities:
It was considering the rampant abuse of law(s) by official agencies that I brought up
and circulated a draft Accountability of Police Authorities Act, 2020 (which I
have pasted on at the bottom of this document and have also separately attached in
PDF)). I confess I have not the expertise to draft such complex material, so I
requested seasoned and expert legal minds to do this for us.
Essentially, in this proposed law: an officer(s) found guilty of filing maliciously
charges they know to be false can face “Imprisonment up to maximum penalty of the
offence for which a charge sheet is filed malafidely or vexatiously; or half of the
maximum penalty if charge sheet is filed with gross negligence…”
India has no law on accountability – to deal with false charges, false arrests and
worse. India is one democracy where no such protection exists for the citizen. This
obviously affects all citizens and prominently among them journalists, and the
media. There are heaps of regressive laws, tailored for misuse, affecting journalism –
but there is no law that holds police or bureaucrats accountable for false arrests or
false charges.
I had mentioned in a meeting the point of the District Magistrate of Varanasi (the
prime minister’s constituency) who in March 2020 had issued a show cause notice to
journalist Vijay Vineet news editor of the Varanasi edition of the daily Jansandesh,
demanding they apologise for a story which reported that the very vulnerable
Musahar (Dalit) community in the area was surviving on a type of grass and its seeds.
The story was accompanied by photographs showing Musahar children eating that
grass. Others familiar with the grave situation of hunger among this community also
pitched in with confirmations.
The warnings and notice to the journalists ended up a matter before the National
Human Rights Commission. But with no action taken against the DM, local
authorities anywhere are emboldened to proceed any which way they please.
The preceding year a journalist, Pawan Jaiswal, was booked in the adjoining
Mirzapur district, for shooting a video showing students being fed nothing more than
salt and rotis –these being passed off as a regular midday meal. Jaiswal was booked
for maligning the image of the state government.
False FIRs and vigilante armies:
Journalists covering the most vulnerable Dalit and Adivasi communities with
concern and sympathy have found themselves facing FIRs charging them with
putting out defamatory material and with offences under the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This was the experience of Supriya
Sharma executive editor of the news portal Scroll. (This too, like the Jansandesh
episode, happened in the prime minister’s constituency).
Interestingly, the FIR against her was filed not by the government or police, but
clearly at their behest. It was filed by a lady describing herself as a sanitation
labourer finding occasional work with local authorities – via ‘outsourcing’ (and who
was quoted by Sharma in her story). It remains a question whether that lady filed the
complaint of her own volition or whether it was filed by someone else in her name.
When NDTV asked the family in a television interview how they had come to learn of
the article which is in English on an English news portal, the complainant’s son
replied that the police had told them about it.
Journalists in UP speak of an “FIR Culture” in the state and say this has had a
significant impact on any kind of journalism probing the conditions of hunger and
health among poor communities.
This and other instances and situations like it also raise serious questions of and
about non-state actors (in some cases vigilantes) clearly aligned with governments,
lodging FIRs against journalists with the aid of a willing police. In fact, there is wide
recognition of the scale on which these non-state (but more often than not, pro-
government) actors function – as large, vigilante troll armies dealing wholesale in the
ammunition of hate speech. The social media accounts of citizens, including
journalists, have often been hacked and sometimes false material has been planted.
This can lead to ugly, even dangerous situations for the account holders. (An aside
here: my Wikipedia page has been vandalised multiple times in the last two months,
with the vandals planting complete untruths and sometimes utter nonsense).

Using the laws to harass journalists:

To date, there have been around 60-70 FIRs filed against journalists in just the past
year or so (many of these in Uttar Pradesh). Many of them under bizarre laws or
sections of laws. We are now all familiar with the shameful misuse of charges of
sedition brought under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code.
The range of fields is bewildering – it is not a list I have drawn up (though I have
added a few right at the top of it). The list is drawn up by our sub-committee working
with the Ministry of Law and Justice. And they had given us a ministry-wise listing of
over 50 laws that in one way or the other touch the media.
However, in the draft report, the laws are relegated to an appendix. Within the
report, this important sector merits no more than three lines titled ‘Key laws related
to the practice of journalism in India.” Nothing is said about the laws themselves
and how they are being used or misused.
Here I give just a sampling of some those laws – less than a fifth of the total of
media-related laws in India that can be interpreted at whim by varying levels of
authorities to harass and hound journalists.
1) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 (amended 2019)
2) The Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 (amended 1956)
3) The Disaster Management Act 2005
4) The Copyright Act, 1957
5) The Official Secrets Act, 1923
6) The Civil Defence Act 1968 (27 of 1968)
7) The Telecom Regulatory Authority Act
8) The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956
9) The Information Technology Act 2000
10) The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 124A (Sedition)
Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups)
Section 292 (sale etc., of obscene books)
Section 298 (intent to wound religious feelings)
Section 499 (defamation)
Section 500 (criminal defamation)
Section 501 (punishment for printing/engraving matter known to be defamatory)
Section 502 (sale of printed/engraved substance containing defamatory matter)
Section 505 (statements conducive to public mischief)

The full listing is to be found in Appendix 18 of the draft report. (I have pasted it on
here, at the bottom, as an appendix at the bottom of this document)
Missing words and contexts:
In our meetings, the gamut of problems faced by media and journalists did come up,
however limited the discussion on them may have been. The subject of arrests,
arbitrary detention, charges under bizarre laws, internet shutdowns, abuse of law,
intimidation, censorship, FIRs, false arrests…. Many of these issues did find mention.
A search I did on the draft report shows that even the words sedition, censorship and
FIRs, do not appear a single time in description of that ground situation. ‘Sedition’
appears once in a convoluted quote from late communications scholar Wilbur
Schramm.
Even the word ‘censorship’ - at the heart of the debate over freedom - only appears in
a single line that actually denies its prevalence in India. “There is no pre or post
censorship on any news report in India, subject to the reasonable restrictions
provided on free speech provided in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.”
In real terms, in the sense of being a listed problem needing resolution, in the sense
of capturing ground reality, these words do not appear a single time in the report and
other, also very important words, do not appear at all in any form. I made a tentative
and surely incomplete list of those words:
Dissent/Right to dissent
False pretences
Sedition charges
Sacking of journalists under government pressure
Sacking of editors
Abuse of law
Intimidation by government agencies
Arbitrary action against journalists
Internet shutdowns
Detention without being produced in court
Salary cuts
Retrenchments
Arrests
Censorship
Public humiliation
Accountability

It’s hard to see how a report that surveys the ground reality can evade using these
words, or even just some of them, a single time.
Retrenchment drives and lay-offs:
At the same time, we have witnessed the damage done to the security and freedom of
journalists by large and powerful corporate media groups – in the guise of financial
crisis brought on by the pandemic. The same groups did much the same exercise of
sacking countless journalists after the Wall Street collapse of 2008, after the
demonetisation, after other crisis points – in fact utilising these to implement a
longer-term agenda of shedding staff who had put in years of service to their
organisations.
By the time we held the first meeting of the committee, over 1,000 journalists had
already been laid off – by some of the wealthiest, most cash-rich media houses in the
country. That number has long since crossed 1,500 – not to forget or downplay the
fact thousands of non-journalist media workers, critical to the media’s functioning,
have also been sacked, laid off, retrenched. We do not in our report raise the question
of why the media owners can get away with this after the Prime Minister declared
journalists and media to be an essential service 11 months ago.
And questions from, say, the Press Council to such groups is met with responses:
none of your business, this is not an issue of press freedom, it can only come up
under the Industrial Disputes Act – which is nowhere within the purview of the Press
Council.
This is an obnoxious argument – that destruction of journalists’ livelihoods, the
complete loss of security which accompanies that – has no bearing on their freedom
of expression, on press and media freedom in general.
The same sections of the media have even this week carried pieces making a strong
link between duties on newsprint and freedom of expression. Which is fine – but
then denying a link between job security and press certainly seems odd. It amounts
to saying: raising newsprint duties is an assault of freedom of the press, but sacking
thousands of journalists and rendering them jobless and insecure - that has no
connection with and does not in any way affect, press freedom.
The gaping holes in the report:
This draft report has four chapters: the first engages in a broad understanding of
what press freedom is, its relationship to democracy and how it has been historically
defined. It does so without relating it at any point to ground realities in India.
The second chapter describes something of the background including meetings
and coordination with the Niti Aayog (which meetings involved only those working in
or with government and not at any point the whole Cell itself).
The third chapter, by far the longest, describes in some detail the action plan of
our Index Monitoring Cell, and deals at inordinate length with an analysis of the
World Press Freedom Index and its methodology, including the questionnaire they
used for their survey. This is clearly what the drafters consider the most important
part of this report.
The chapter offers quantitative data on the popularity of traditional media in India,
the numerical growth in publications (newspapers, journals, periodicals etc.) in
various regional and national languages, the growth of public service broadcasting
system with radio and television, the entry of private players in the field. And finally,
it talks about the ever-widening reach of the internet in India.
At one point, the main report itself does warn of concentration of ownership and
monopolisation of the media. But it seemingly ends up suggesting that the growth in
numbers is a self-evident indicator of press freedom in India.
The most disappointing however, is chapter 4, the final one, on the report’s
recommendations. There are some anyone would agree with (ensuring physical
safety of journalists in conflict zones etc.,). Also with ideas like the establishment of a
Media Council of India (presumably to cover the areas the Press Council of India in
its present avatar cannot. However, no details on the role and scope or structure of
this body are suggested).
And several somewhat vague ones, some of them meaningless (organising an annual
media conclave – by the I&B ministry?) the purpose of which, in relation to press
freedom in the context we are concerned with, is unclear (skilling and re-skilling of
journalists); and ‘outreach’ programmes to promote engagement with industry and
media houses.
And there are those that are totally unacceptable. I reject the idea of recommending
that we or the I&B ministry engage in a “three-pronged communication strategy to
actively change the public image of the country.” My entire note is focused on
changing the reality that breeds that image.
What must be done:
The first thing the report needs to clearly state: that we recognise the existence of a
serious crisis in freedom of expression in the country (without which there would
have been no need for this committee) – and which has reached the proportions of
an undeclared emergency for the media, particularly for independent-minded
journalists. We came together as a committee to study freedom of the press. Our
report, dedicated to improving that freedom can hardly remain silent on the stifling
of it, on the throttling of dissent, the undermining of democracy.
Second: if we are to even think of suggesting remedies to the situation, it is very
important but insufficient to describe that situation – it is also essential to establish
accountability. How did this situation come about? What forces social, political
economic, cultural drove it to this point? What has been the role of the most
powerful government and state in moulding it.
Third: the first recommendation to the government from us should be – drop all the
FIRs filed against journalists this past year or more. Release all journalists
incarcerated on outrageous charges – like Kappan Siddique under the UAPA. And
advise police and bureaucracy not to victimise any citizen under outlandish
provisions of laws, some of which were formulated in British times to crush Indian
freedoms of both press and citizenry.
The government also needs to lay in parliament all data on the FIRs and arrests
besides declaring itself committed to freedom of the press and that it will ensure no
further excesses shall happen.
Four: Scrap a number of those colonial laws – but also formulate one new one along
the lines I suggested in our third meeting. In fact, I circulated it – a draft law on
Accountability of Police Authorities Act, 2020, drawn up on my request by seasoned
legal minds.
Five: I do not at all understand the importance of recommendation: “Regular
engagement with international media ranking agencies.” Our job is to improve press
freedom in India, not to carry out publication relations exercises (like is done with
the Ease of Business Index, or with credit rating agencies etc.) with ‘international
media ranking agencies.’ If we transform the existing media freedom situation
radically for the better, that is far more important – and will have its positive fallout
on those rankings, too. Improved rankings have a meaning only if they are a
beneficial fallout of actual improvement in journalistic freedom.
Six: we should be recommending surveys that cover and lead to protection of all
journalists – including freelancers – not just of “accredited” journalists. Else, we
would be possibly excluding over 90 per cent of journalists in this country. Again, we
need to engage with, even help build, the representative bodies of the different
sections and kinds of journalists to achieve this.
Seven: One of the draft report’s recommendations is to move on creating a
‘Journalists Welfare Fund Act’ in the interest of financial security of journalists.’ Not
a bad thing to do – but it would have to be ensured that this does not become an
avenue for abdication of any responsibility of their employers for their security. We
have to be much clearer and more spelt out on what this Fund would entail, who
would fund it and how, who would administer and control it – and a lot more.
Eight: What could be more urgent is setting up a Legal Defence body for journalists
that they do not have to pay for – which fights for mediapersons who have had false
cases foisted on them. And build that alongside creating the law for Police (and other
authorities) Accountability, 2020 (draft attached).
Nine: We should be, more importantly, cracking down on the violations of the best
laws relating to the media – such as the Working Journalists Act. The biggest media
groups have, ever since they rammed through a very regressive form of ‘contract’
employment, shown open scorn and contempt for The Working Journalists Act.
Apart from which, on matters relating to the Wage Board, they have not hesitated to
scorn the pronouncements of the Supreme Court itself.
It is extremely important to press freedom that this mockery of the law be ended.
The draft report does call for coordination with the labour ministry on the
implementation of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations across the country.
And for coordination with the Ministry of Law Affairs. But that appears to be a call to
the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to do so – by coordinating and
requesting those other ministries to cooperate. It does not create a framework where
any of those bodies or the government itself, are answerable or accountable for
what’s happening to media freedoms.
Ten: there should be (and the report does recognise the need for this,) workshops
and meetings for sensitisation of police officers and bureaucrats on dealing with
journalists and media lawfully and scrupulously.
Eleven: Wilful scuttling of the wage board’s recommendations – already supported
by the courts – must be strongly penalised. Also, security of tenure be reintroduced.
Immediately, at the very least, owners must give an undertaking that they will, not
misuse the contract system to sack and victimise journalists. At least till the courts
explicitly hold that the contract system as presently used violates the Working
Journalists Act. And that media owners should not be allowed to pre-empt or kill the
formation of journalist unions – nor forbid collective bargaining. The journalist
unions, associations and professional bodies are the best defence against abuse of the
journalists’ rights, the best guarantee of the journalists’ independence.
As the reporter who did that series of stories investigating and exposing paid news in
the media (The Hindu 2009-10), I assert that the absence of strong unions to prevent
victimisation of journalists – that was one of the biggest reasons why great media
houses were able to crush the independence and freedom of journalists; were able to
elevate paid news from minor corruption to an industry with a turnover of thousands
of crores. Several mediapersons – in media houses where contracts are used as a
weapon and not as an agreement – simply could not stand up to their media owners
and stop the disgusting corruption of paid news. There were no unions, no
associations of collective strength to fight for them if they were thrown out of their
jobs for endangering the racket.
Twelve: I believe we should have also called for not just a strengthening of the Press
Council or the creation of a Media Council, but for the appointment of a Press
Commission. We had two – in 1952-54 and 1977 reconstituted in 1980. In fact the
Press Council, The Registrar of Newspapers in India (RNI), the very idea of a Wage
Board – all these emerged from the workings of that first press commission headed
by Justice J.S. Rajyadakshya. A third one if we set it up should report to Parliament,
not to any one ministry.
I request my colleagues to consider what I’ve put down here. And also request the
chairman to carry my submission and response as a separate note in the report when
finalising it.
APPENDIX 1

(Draft) Accountability of Police Authorities Act, 2020

An Act to provide for accountability of public servants (including police authorities) for
acting malafidely, vexatiously, or with gross negligence in discharge of their public
duty.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy Third Year of the Republic of India as

follows:-

Short title, extent and commencement:—

(1) This Act may be called the Accountability of Police Authorities Act, 2020.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification
in the official gazette declare.

Definitions:— In this Act,—

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law in force, ‘False implication
means malafidely, vexatiously, or with gross negligence:
Registration of a false FIR against a person;
Issuance of coercive process such as search and seizure against a person;
Arrest of a person;
Filing of a chargesheet against a person

‘Public Servant’ includes members of the police force or any other investigative or law
enforcement authority.
‘Criminal Force’ has the meaning assigned to it in Indian Penal Code
False Implication of any person:— Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any
other law in force, false implication of any person by a public servant acting individually
or severally with other public servants or private individuals is an offence which shall
be punishable with:
Imprisonment of upto three years if FIR is registered malafidely or vexatiously; or one
year if it is registered with gross negligence; AND commensurate fine recoverable from
errant public servant for the harm caused
Imprisonment of upto three years if coercive process is issued malafidely or
vexatiously; or one year if it is issued with gross negligence; AND commensurate fine
recoverable from errant public servant for the harm caused
Imprisonment of double the period for which malicious and vexatious arrest lasts; or
equal period if arrest is made with gross negligence; AND commensurate fine
recoverable from errant public servant for the harm caused
Imprisonment upto maximum penalty of the offence for which a chargesheet is filed
malafidely or vexatiously; or half of the maximum penalty if chargesheet is filed with
gross negligence; AND commensurate fine recoverable from errant public servant for
the harm caused

Complaint for false implication:— Any person aggrieved by false implication can
make a complaint:

(1) to the local Police Complaints Authority of the District or the State if the police
complaints authority in the district is not set up or if the false implication is in an offence
punishable with life imprisonment or death.
(2) to the Special CBI Court of the area pursuant to which such a complaint would be
treated as a complaints case as per extant provisions of CrPC.

Proviso: The complaint may be filed by the person directly aggrieved or by his family
members or heirs.

Complaint for use of criminal force by a public servant:- Any person aggrieved by
use of vexatious, malafide or grossly negligent criminal force by a public servant can
make a complaint:

(1) to the local Police Complaints Authority of the District or the State if the police
complaints authority in the district is not set up or use of criminal force has caused death

(2) to the Special CBI Court of the area pursuant to which such a complaint would be
treated as a complaints case as per extant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure

Proviso: The complaint may be filed by the person directly aggrieved or by his family
members or heirs.

EXPLANATION: X, a police officer, abuses his authority and murders Y purportedly

in an encounter for malicious or vexatious reasons. A complaint may be made by the
family members or heirs of Y against X under this section.
Power of Police Complaint Authority:—
(1) The Police Complaints Authority will have all such powers as are available to police
to investigate into any information prima facie disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence.
(2) The Police Complaints Authority may either investigate into the complaint itself by
it’s own officers or by requisitioning any officers from the available State Police Cadre
or have the complaint investigated through any investigating agency of it’s choice.
(3) Upon conclusion of the investigation if the offence of false implication is made out,
the charge sheet would be filed before the local special court dealing with CBI cases.
(4) The Police Complaint Authority would be free to appoint a Public Prosecutor of it’s
choice to prosecute the case.
(5) The Public Prosecutor so appointed would be paid as per extant rules and
regulations.

Offences under this Act to be cognizable.— Notwithstanding anything contained in

any other law in force, any offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable.

Duty of Courts.—
(1) In every criminal proceeding resulting in an acquittal, on an application made by the
acquitted person, it shall be the duty of the court in which such criminal proceeding
results in an acquittal to give a prime facie opinion as to whether the initiation of
criminal process against the acquitted person was malafide, vexatious, or grossly
negligent
(2) Where the finding is in the affirmative, the court shall direct registration of FIR
against the erring public servants and the investigation therefore shall be done by the
Police Complaint Authority.
Appendix 2
Media-Related laws in India
Media Laws in India
1) The Constitution of India
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides that all citizens shall have the right to
freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions which are:
a) Sovereignty and integrity of India;
b) Security of the State;
c) Friendly relations with foreign States;
d) Public order;
e) Decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court;
f) Defamation or incitement to an offence.
Article 129 of the Constitution of India provides that the Supreme Court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for
contempt of itself.
Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that every High Court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for
contempt of itself.

2) The Press Council of India Act, 1978

An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press
and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.

3) The Contempt of Court Act, 1971

An Act to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and
to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.
Section 3 – Innocent publication and distribution of matter not amount to contempt of
court.
Section 4 – Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not amount to contempt.
Section 5 – Fair criticism of judicial act not amount to contempt.
Section 7 – Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or
in camera not amount to contempt except in certain cases.

4) The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 499 provides that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to
defame that person.
Section 500 provides for punishment for defamation.
Section 501 provides for punishment for printing or engraving matter known to be
defamatory.
Section 502 provides for punishment for sale of printed or engraved substance containing
defamatory matter.
Section 292 provides for punishment for sale, etc. of obscene books, etc.
Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 292 provides that whoever advertises or makes
known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act
which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from
or through any person, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, and, in the event of second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may
extend to five thousand rupees.
Section 124-A provides 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 in
India, shall be punished with imprisonment of life, to which fine may be added, or with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Section 295A provides for punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage
religious feeling of any class of citizen of India.
Section 298 provides for punishment for uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to
wound religious feelings.
Section 153-A provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on
ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, languages, etc. and doing act prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.

5) The Evidence Act, 1872

Section 123 provides for Evidence as to affairs of State.
Section 124 provides for Official Communications.

6) The Right to Information Act, 2005

An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to
secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of
a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 3 provides that all citizens shall have the right to information.
Section 5 provides that every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and
render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.

7) The Copyright Act, 1957

An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to copyright.

8) The Cinematograph Act, 1952

An Act to make provision for the certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and for
regulating exhibitions by means of cinematographs.

9) The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995

An Act to regulate the operation of cable television networks in the country and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 6 provides that no person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service any
advertisement unless such advertisement is in conformity with the prescribed advertisement
code.

10) The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990

An Act to provide for the establishment of a Broadcasting Corporation for India, to be known
as Prasar Bharati, to define its composition, functions and powers and to provide for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

11) The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867

An Act for the regulation of printing-presses and of newspapers, for the preservation of
copies of books and newspapers printed in India, and for the registration of such books and
newspapers.
12) The Information Technology Act, 2000
An Act to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data
interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as
―electronic commerce, which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of
communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filing of documents with
the Government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto..

13) The Official Secrets Act, 1923

An act to consolidate and amend the law relating to official secrets.

14) The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956

An Act to prevent the dissemination of certain publications harmful to young persons.
Section 3 provides for punishment for sale, etc. of a harmful publication.

15) The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950
An Act to prevent the improper use of certain emblems and names for professional and
commercial purposes.
Section 3 provides for prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names of National
or International significance.

16) The Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954
An Act is to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement
for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities.

17) The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of

Sex Selection) Act, 1994
This Act enacted to provide for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception,
and for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the purposes of detecting genetic
abnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital
malformations or sex-linked disorders and for the prevention of their misuse for sex
determination leading to female foeticide and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.
Section 22 provides that no person or organization capable of undertaking determination of
sex of foetus or sex selection shall issue, publish, distribute or communicate any
advertisement, in any form regarding facilities of pre-natal determination of sex or sex
selection before conception available at such centre or organization including laboratory,
clinic or at any other place.

18) The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 An Act to provide for the
regulation of removal, storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues for
therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and
tissues and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 19(f) provides that whoever publishes, distributes or cause to be published or
distributed any advertisement offering to supply any human organ for payment shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which
may extend to ten years and shall be liable to fine which shall not be less than twenty lakh
rupees but may extend to one crore rupees.

19) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles.
Section 116(4) provides that a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
empower any police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police to remove or
cause to be removed any sign or advertisement which is so placed in his opinion as to
obscure any traffic sign from view or any sign or advertisement which in his opinion is so
similar in appearance to a traffic sign as to be misleading or which in his opinion is likely to
distract the attention or concentration of the driver.

20) The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement

and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution)
Act, 2003
An Act to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and
commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco
products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 5 provides that no person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in, the production,
supply or distribution of cigarettes or other tobacco products shall advertise and no person
having control over a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco
products through that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisement which
directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigarettes or any other
tobacco products.

21) The Consumer Protection Act, 2019

An Act to provide for protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to
establish authorities for timely and effective administration and settlement of consumers'
disputes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 10 provides that the Central Government shall, by notification, establish with effect
from such date as it may specify in that notification, a Central Consumer Protection
Authority to be known as the Central Authority to regulate matters relating to violation of
rights of consumers, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are
prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the
rights of consumers as a class.

22) The Representation of People Act, 1951

The object of the Act is to provide for the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament
and of the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State. It also deals with the corrupt
practices and other offences which are in connection with such election.

23) The Advocates Act, 1961

An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners and to provide for
the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar.
The Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 made under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 of
the Advocates Act, 1961.
Rule 36 of Section IV of Chapter II of Part VI of the said Rules provides that an Advocate
shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars,
advertisements, touts, personal communications, interview not warranted by personal
relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photograph to be
published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned.

24) The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

An Act to prohibit indecent representation of women through advertisements or in
publications, writings, paintings, figures or in any other manner and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 3 provides prohibition of advertisement containing indecent representation of
women.

25) The Advertising Standards Council of India Code

ASCI Code is appended in the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
Rule 7(1) provides that advertising carried in the cable service shall be so designed as to
conform to the laws of the country and should not offend morality, decency and religious
susceptibilities of the subscribers.
Rule 7(9) provides that no advertisement which violates the Code for self regulation in
advertising, as adopted by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), Mumbai for
public exhibition in India, from time to time shall be carried in the cable service.

26) The Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958.

An Act to provide for the fixation of rates of wages in respect of working journalists and for
matters connected therewith.

27) The Delivery of Books and Newspapers (Public Libraries) Act, 1954 (27 of
1954)
An Act to provide for delivery of books to the National Library and other public libraries.

28) The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of

Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955)
An Act to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons
employed in newspaper establishments.

28) The Civil Defence Act, 1968 (27 of 1968)

An Act to make provision for civil defence and for matters connected therewith.
Section 3 (1) (w) provides that Central Government shall make rules for,-
(i) prohibiting the printing and publication of any newspaper, news-sheet, book or other
document containing matters prejudicial to civil defence;
(ii) demanding security from any press used for the purpose of printing or publishing, and
forfeiting the copies of, any newspaper, news-sheet, book or other document containing any
of the matters referred to in sub-clause (i);

29) The Cine-workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of

Employment) Act, 1981 (50 of 1981)
An Act to provide for the regulation of the conditions of employment of certain cine-workers
and cinema theatre workers and for matters connected therewith.

30) The Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981 (33 of 1981)

An Act to provide for the financing of activities to promote the welfare of certain cine-
workers.

31) THE CINE-WORKERS WELFARE FUND ACT, 1981 (30 OF 1981)

An Act to provide for the levy and collection of a cess on feature films for the financing of
activities to promote the welfare of certain cine-workers and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto.

32) THE DRUGS AND MAGIC REMEDIES (OBJECTIONABLE

ADVERTISEMENTS) ACT, 1954 (21 OF 1954)
Act to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement for
certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities and to provide for matters
connected therewith.

33) The Press Council Rules, 1979

34) The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 (15 of

1977)
An Act to protect the publication of reports of proceedings of Parliament.
35) THE EMBLEMS AND NAMES (PREVENTION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT,
1950 (12 OF 1950)
An Act to prevent the improper use of certain emblems and names for professional and
commercial purposes.

36) The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Rules, 1982.

37) The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 (93 of 1956)
An Act to prevent the dissemination of certain publications harmful to young persons.

38) THE SPORTS BROADCASTING SIGNALS (MANDATORY SHARING WITH

PRASAR BHARATI) ACT, 2007 (11 OF 2007)
An Act to provide access to the largest number of listeners and viewers, on a free to air basis,
of sporting events of national importance through mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting
signals with Prasar Bharati and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

39) THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (REGULATION) ACT, 1995 (7 OF

1995)
An Act to regulate the operation of cable television networks in the country and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

40) THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885 (13 OF 1885)

An Act to amend the law relating to Telegraphs in India.

41) THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1997 (24 OF

1997)
An Act to provide for the establishment of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to regulate the telecommunication
services, adjudicate disputes, dispose of appeals and to protect the interests of service
providers and consumers of the telecom sector, to promote and ensure orderly growth of the
telecom sector and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

42) THE WORKING JOURNALISTS (FIXATION OF RATES OF WAGES) ACT,

1958 (29 OF 1958)
An Act to provide for the fixation of rates of wages in respect of working journalists and for
matters connected therewith.

43) THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012

(32 OF 2012)
An Act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography and provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

44) THE PRIZE COMPETITIONS ACT, 1955 (42 OF 1955)

An Act to provide for the control and regulation of prize competitions.

45) THE PRIZE CHITS AND MONEY CIRCULATION SCHEMES (BANNING)

ACT, 1978 (43 OF 1978)
An Act to ban the promotion or conduct of prize chits and money circulation schemes and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

46) THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT,

1986 (60 OF 1986)
An Act to prohibit indecent representation of women through advertisements or in
publications, writings, paintings, figures or in any other manner and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.

47) The Bombay Police Act, 1951 (XXII of 1951)

An Act to consolidate and amend the law for the regulation of the Police Force in the State of
Bombay.

48) The Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, 1923(1 of 1923)

An Act to impose a duty in respect of admission to entertainment in the State of Bombay.

49) The Press Council Rules, 1979

50) The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005

51) The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005

52) THE STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT,

2005 (50 OF 2005)
An Act to prohibit the improper use of State Emblem of India for professional and commercial
purpose and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Appendix 3
Press freedom and freedom of speech violations in 2020-21

Arrests of journalists (22), Notices (9), FIRs (22), Freedom of speech and related cases
(21) and Miscellaneous (25). Total 99.

Part I. Arrests of Journalists:

1. Andrew Sam Raja Pandian, Jerald Aruldas and M Balaji, Tamil Nadu
On April 23, Andrew Sam Raja Pandian was arrested in Coimbatore for running reports on
Covid-19 on SimpliCiti, a digital news portal founded by him. The reports were on doctors
facing shortage of food and PPE kits in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and ration
items being diverted by employees of PDS shops. Pandian was arrested under Sections 188
(disobedience to order promulgated by public servant), and 505(i) (making statements to
cause public alarm) of the IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act. He was released
on bail on April 28.

Before Pandian was arrested, police had detained the journalist and the photographer who had
reported the stories, Jerald Aruldas and M Balaji, for nine hours each.

https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/9/18693/Journalists-%20Covering-
Pandemic-Feel-the-Heat-Arrests-and-Interrogation

2. Zubair Ahmed, Andaman and Nicobar Islands

On April 27, Zubair Ahmed, a freelance journalist, was arrested for a tweet on quarantine
rules being followed by local authorities. He referred to a news article on a family that was
reportedly quarantined after a member spoke to a Covid-19 positive person over the phone.
Ahmed was charged under Indian Penal Code sections 188, 269, 270 and 505(1) that relate to
disobedience of a public official and a malignant act aimed at spreading infections. He was
also charged under sections 51 and 54 of the Disaster Management, which entails punishment
for obstructing government efforts to contain a disaster. He was released on bail by a local
magistrate on April 28.

https://thewire.in/media/andaman-journalist-arrested-for-tweet-accused-of-spreading-false-
information

3. Dhaval Patel, Gujarat

On May 11, the Gujarat Police arrested Dhaval Patel, editor of Face the Nation, an online
Gujarati news portal. The editor was charged for publishing an article claiming that chief
minister Vijay Rupani might be replaced due to criticism over the rising number of Covid-19
cases in Gujarat. Patel was booked under section 54 (Punishment for false warning) of
Disaster Management Act, 2005, and section 124A (Sedition) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). He
was granted bail by a court in Ahmedabad on May 28.

https://thewire.in/media/gujarat-covid-dhaval-patel-sedition-bail

4. Pawan Choudhary, Bihar

On 6 April 2020, Pawan Choudhary, a web journalist, was arrested in Munger in Bihar on the
charges of spreading misinformation about the death of a Covid-19 patient. The SHO of
Jamalpur, Ranjan Kumar, stated that Choudhary was found to be spreading rumours through
his social media account. He was sent to judicial custody in Munger jail.
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/06/23/stop-criminalising-free-speech-protect-
journalism-pucl.html

5. Damodharan, Tamil Nadu

On the night of April 7, 2020, a TV journalist named Damodharan working with Sun News
was arrested from Tamil Nadu’s Minjur town after he shot visuals of primary health centre
staff handing medicines to patients without a doctor’s prescription. The journalist was booked
under charges of cheating, forgery, and preventing a public servant from discharging his duty.
He is currently out on bail.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2020/apr/09/scribe-who-exposed-
violations-at-phc-booked-as-fake-journo-2127664.html

6. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai, Jammu & Kashmir

On April 11, 2020, Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai a journalist working for the Srinagar-based
English daily, Kashmir Observer, was arrested and detained for two days at Sumbal police
station in Bandipore district of Jammu and Kashmir. He had gone there to inspect the
availability of the doctors and cross-check reports about possible violations of the lockdown
in the Naidkhai area in Bandipore. Ganai was booked under Sections 188 (disobedience to
order duly promulgated by public servant) and 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection)
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was released on April 13, 8 hours after he being granted
bail.

https://thefederal.com/states/north/jammu-and-kashmir/kashmir-journalists-continue-to-be-
harassed-summoned-and-intimidated/

7. Rahul Kulkarni, Maharashtra

On April 15, 2020, ABP News correspondent Rahul Kulkarni was arrested by the Mumbai
Police over his report that the railways would restart operations, which the police alleged may
have prompted the gathering of hundreds of migrants outside the Bandra station in Mumbai.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-lockdown-vina-dubey-who-allegedly-incited-
migrants-to-gather-in-mumbai-bandra-arrested-2211970

8. Abhilash Padachery, Andaman & Nicobar Islands

On May 1, 2020, Abhilash Padachery, an online journalist from Kozhikode, was detained –
along with three other youths – by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on the charges of
having links with Maoists in Kerala. The NIA claimed that they found several documents
supporting Left-wing extremism and CPI (Maoist). Abhilash was released on the night of
May 1 but was summoned for questioning again on 2 May.

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2020/05/03/nia-nabs-three-youths-with-maoist-
links.html

9. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Abhishek Singh, Hemant Chowrasia and Ayush Kumar
Singh, West Bengal
On February 10, 2020, an SC bench headed by Justice R Banumathi stopped the state police
from arresting TV journalists Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Abhishek Singh, Hemant Chowrasia
and Ayush Kumar Singh who were booked in five cases after they conducted a sting
operation to show state ministers and TMC MLAs allegedly taking bribes.
https://www.news18.com/news/india/sc-restrains-bengal-police-from-arresting-5-tv-
journalists-booked-for-sting-operation-of-tmc-mlas-2631255.html

10. Prashant Kanojia, Uttar Pradesh

On August 18, the UP police arrested journalist Prashant Kanojia of The Wire for allegedly
posting a morphed photograph related to the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The FIR against
Kanojia was filed under nine sections of the IPC, related to promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language; statements
creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes; forgery for the purpose of
cheating, and defamation, among others. He was also booked under Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, which pertains to online offences. He was granted bail by
the Allahabad High Court on October 21.

Prior to this on 7 April 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Police lodged an FIR against him for
allegedly making ‘objectionable remarks’ about prime minister Narendra Modi and chief
minister Yogi Adityanath on social media. The journalist was charged under Indian Penal
Code sections 500 (defamation), 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory)
and 505(1)(b), which deals with offences committed with the intention to cause fear or alarm
among the public, or induce people against the state, as well as the Information Technology
Act.

https://scroll.in/latest/970703/journalist-prashant-kanojia-arrested-by-up-police-in-
connection-with-some-tweets-reports

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/up-fir-against-journalist-for-online-post-
against-pm-cm-6352480/

11. Siddique Kappan, Uttar Pradesh

On October 6, Siddique Kappan, the Delhi correspondent for the Azhimukham News Portal
was arrested from Mathura, while on his way to Hathras to cover the death of a 19-year-old
Dalit woman who had been sexually abused by four upper caste men. The UP Police booked
him under UAPA and several sections of the IPC and Information Technology Act for having
allegedly links with “banned organisations.”

https://thewire.in/law/up-government-siddique-kappan-supreme-court

12. Ramesh Rath, Odisha

On October 15, Odisha Television senior reporter Ramesh Rath was arrested for telecasting
an expose on chief minister Naveen Patnaik’s claims about an aerial survey of the flood-hit
areas in the state. The telecast was based on data procured through RTIs. According to
reports, four to five persons who identified themselves as police, forcibly picked up Rath and
took him to an undisclosed location. He was later released and asked to report to a police
station in Keonjhar district on October 21.

https://theprint.in/india/jk-to-kerala-gujarat-bengal-journalists-across-india-face-police-
action-even-for-tweets/531192/
13. Rajesh Sharma, Delhi
On September 14, a freelance journalist Rajesh Sharma was arrested by the Delhi Police
under the Officials Secret Act for passing on sensitive information to China in exchange for
money from 2016.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/scribe-held-in-official-secrets-act-
case/article32644626.ece

14. Ajay Bhadauria

On May 13, Ajay Bhaduria was booked by the UP Police for a tweet in which he pointed out
that a community kitchen in Fatehpur’s Vijaypur had closed down. The sub-divisional
magistrate had him booked for circulating false news.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/08/uttar-pradesh-fatehpurs-journalists-stand-in-the-
ganga-to-protest-against-harassment-by-
administration#:~:text=On%20June%207%2C%20about%20a,for%20their%20purported%2
0critical%20reporting.

15. Kishorechandra Wangkhem, Manipur

On September 29, Kishorechandra Wangkhem was arrested for responding to a viral social
media post made by a BJP politician’s wife. The post was in response to a reportedly
derogatory comment and a ‘racial slur’ about her made by a Meitei woman close to her
husband. The wife belongs to the Marram community, a different Manipuri tribe. Wangkhem
was booked under Indian Penal Code are 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language), 503
(criminal intimidation) and 3(1) (R) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-journalist-continues-to-be-jailed-
facebook-posts-in-bjp-ruled-manipur/363615

https://thewire.in/rights/manipur-journalist-kishorechandra-wangkhem-arrest-facebook-
meitei-maram-facebook

16. Naresh Khohal, Haryana

On May 7, Naresh Khohal, a photojournalist with a Hindi daily in Haryana’s Jhajjar town,
informed the local police about stone pelting in his neighbourhood. Hours later, the Police
arrested him for “creating nuisance” and booked for “spreading infection of dangerous
disease”, violation of Covid-19 instructions and under Disaster Management Act, 2005.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/haryana-photo-journalist-informs-cops-
about-stone-pelting-is-arrested-for-creating-nuisance-spreading-dangerous-disease-6437770/

17. Tsewang Rigzin, Ladakh

On September 5, Tsewang Rigzin, the Leh correspondent of the popular Jammu-based daily
State Times, was arrested on the basis of a police complaint lodged by the BJP MP Jamyang
Tsering Namgyal from Ladakh. On September 3, a member – whom the police have not been
able to trace yet – had posted a comment on the BJP parliamentarian on Rigzin’s Facebook
Group, ‘Ladakh in the Media’. Police then arrested Rigzin on September 5, citing the fact that
he was the admin of that social media platform. He was booked under Section 188 of the
Indian Penal Code (disobeying a public servant.)

https://thewire.in/politics/ladakh-editor-tsewang-rigzin-jamyang-tsering-namgyal

18. Sharjeel Usmani, Uttar Pradesh

On July 8, Sharjeel Usmani, a freelance reporter and writer at the news collective Maktoob,
was arrested by anti-terror police officers in Azamgarh, UP, while he was visiting a relative.
Police alleged that Usmani incited violent protests at Aligarh Muslim University on
December 15, 2019, against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

https://cpj.org/2020/07/indian-police-arrest-journalist-sharjeel-usmani-in-uttar-pradesh/

19. Suraj Ali Khan and Safikul Islam, Alima Khatun, West Bengal
On June 29, journalists Suraj Ali Khan and Safikul Islam, as well as Islam’s wife, Alima
Khatun, of Arambagh TV, were arrested by the police in the West Bengal’s Hooghly district
for extortion. The arrests were prompted by a complaint filed by a local resident who alleged
that Islam and Khan had photographed him cutting down a tree on government land. They
were booked for violating sections of the Disaster Management Act for making false
statements and printing or publishing news without conforming to rules under the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867.

https://cpj.org/2020/07/indian-authorities-arrest-2-journalists-covering-corruption-
allegations-in-west-bengal/

20. Mandeep Punia

Mandeep Punia, a freelance journalist who regularly contributes to The Caravan, was
released from Tihar Jail in Delhi on the night of February 3. The Delhi Police had picked
up Punia on January 30 from the farmers’ protest at Singhu, between Haryana and Delhi.
Earlier that day, he had posted a video on Facebook about a group that attacked the Singhu
protest on January 29. Punia reported seeing 50-60 people arrive at the site. He said in the
video that the group pelted stones at the protesters, lobbed a petrol bomb and tried to set fire
to their belongings, in front of thousands of policemen. Punia reported in the video that two
of the assailants were associated with the BJP. Later that evening, he was arrested for
allegedly ‘obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions’. The FIR characterised
him as a protester, and not a journalist.
https://caravanmagazine.in/interview/-journalist-mandeep-punia-on-journalism-jail-and-
reporting-in-prison

21. Siddique Kappan

The UP police booked Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan and two others under sedition and
terror charges in September 2020. Siddique, along with Atiq-ur-Rahman and Masood Ahmed,
both affiliated with the Muslim organisation Popular Front of India, were arrested on October
5 while on their way to Hathras to report on the alleged gang rape and murder case that made
national headlines. The government of India has accused the organisation of being ‘anti-
national’ and having funded the anti-CAA protests. Siddique Kappan is based in Delhi and
works for a Malayalam news portal called Azhimukham.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/journalist-siddique-kappan-jailed-on-way-to-ups-hathras-
granted-5-days-conditional-bail-by-supreme-court-to-meet-mother-2370838
22. Paojel Chaoba and Dhiren Sadokpam
The two Manipur journalists were charged with sedition and arrested on January 17, 2020,
under the UAPA – a stringent anti-terror law – in connection with an article published in The
Frontier Manipur, a local news website. Chaoba is the executive editor and Dhiren is an
editor at the portal. The article was titled ‘Revolutionary Journey in a Mess.’ The police
statement said that the author through the article “openly endorsed revolutionary ideologies
and activities and expressed shock and dismay at the deteriorating character of the armed
revolutionary leaders of Manipur in the recent decade.”
https://thewire.in/media/two-manipur-journalists-detained-after-uapa-sedition-case-filed-
against-them

Part II. Notices against journalists:

1. Vijay Vineet, Uttar Pradesh

On March 26, the Varanasi District Magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma sent a show-cause notice
to journalist Vijay Vineet and Subhash Rai, the editor-in-chief of Janadesh Times. The local
daily carried a report claiming that members of the Musahar community in Koiripur village,
Varanasi district, were surviving on grass during the lockdown. The notice called on Vineet
and Rai to publish a denial of the report.

https://theprint.in/india/journalist-behind-story-of-starving-dalits-eating-grass-in-varanasi-
district-gets-notice/390385/

2. Neeraj Shivhare, Chhattisgarh

On April 26, the Chhattisgarh government issued a show-cause notice to journalist Neeraj
Shivhare of Bastar ki Aawaz, a digital Hindi language news portal, for his story on a woman
who sold her household items to arrange food during the Covid-19 lockdown. The notice said
that Shivhare had published the report without complete information and threatened to file an
FIR against him.

https://scroll.in/latest/960442/bastar-journalist-threatened-with-fir-for-report-that-damaged-
administrations-image

3. Peerzada Ashiq, Jammu and Kashmir

On April 19, senior journalist Peerzada Ashiq of The Hindu was summoned to the cyber
police headquarters in Srinagar to explain the alleged factual inaccuracies in a story regarding
an encounter between militants and security forces which was published in The Hindu on the
same day. The Police termed the story as “fake news” and said, “The said news was
published without seeking confirmation from the district authorities.” The journalist was
asked to travel to south Kashmir to present himself before a police officer in Anantnag
district for further questioning.

https://scroll.in/latest/959741/kashmir-press-club-condemns-case-against-photojournalist-
seeks-intervention-of-amit-shah-lg

4. Manish Pandey, Uttar Pradesh

On April 30, Lucknow-based journalist Manish Pandey of News1 India, a Hindi news
channel, was summoned (without serving a notice) to the Special Task Force headquarters in
Lucknow for breaking a story on a letter sent by the Directorate General of Medical
Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh, to bureaucrats in the state’s medical education. The
letter said that PPE kits supplied to eight hospitals and medical colleges in the state not met
the required quality standards. On May 1, superintendent of police Vishal Vikram Singh
interrogated Pandey for nearly an hour regarding the source who leaked the official letter to
the journalist.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/02/up-journalist-interrogated-by-police-for-story-on-
low-quality-ppes

5. Mahender Singh Manral, Delhi

On May 10, The Indian Express journalist Mahender Singh Manral, was issued a notice by
Delhi Police, summoning him a day after he reported that the police found that an audio clip
of Tablighi Jamaat leader Maulana Saad may have been doctored. On May 13, the Editors
Guild of India criticised the Delhi Police and stated, “While Manral wasn’t charged under
any law, he was threatened that failure to join the probe could result in legal action under
Section 174 of the IPC with punishment of a prison term and fine. This appears to be a little
more than a fishing expedition to try and extract the journalist’s source and, thus, warn other
reporters.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/editors-guild-tablighi-express-journalist-delhi-police-
6408139/

6. Manash Jyoti Baruah, Assam

On May 15, Guwahati-based journalist Manash Jyoti Baruah was summoned by the National
Investigation Agency (NIA) which interrogated him for about five hours on his role in the
anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests in December 2019 and his relationship with farm
leader Akhil Gogoi who was also arrested by the NIA. Baruah was summoned via a phone
call and without serving a formal notice.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/may/14/nia-summons-assam-journalist-
over-violence-related-to-caa-last-year-2143421.html

https://thefederal.com/states/north-east/guwahati-press-club-writes-to-nia-over-inquiry-into-
journos-role-in-anti-caa-stir/

7. Anuradha Bhasin, Jammu and Kashmir

On October 19, officials from the Estates Department of the region’s administration forced
out employees and sealed the Srinagar office of the independent, English-language daily
Kashmir Times without advance notice or legal documentation. Editor Anuradha Bhasin said
the newspaper had faced various retaliatory actions from authorities, including blocking of
access to government information for the newspaper’s reporters and a complete halt to state
government advertising since October 2019, ever since she filed a petition in August 2019
with the SC against internet and communication blocks imposed by the government. On
September 28, authorities from the Estates Department also cancelled her government-
allotted apartment in Jammu city without prior notice and gave the apartment, along with her
personal belongings, to the new allottee, she said.

https://cpj.org/2020/10/indian-authorities-seal-kashmir-times-office-in-srinagar/
8. Awesh Tiwari, Delhi
On August 16, Ankhi Das – then, Facebook’s public policy director for India, South, and
Central Asia – filed a criminal complaint with the cyber unit of the Delhi police, accusing
Awesh Tiwari, journalist at Swaraj Express, and other social media users, of threatening her,
“making sexually coloured remarks” and defaming her. She alleged that the threats were
prompted by a report published by the Wall Street Journal detailing how she had prevented
Facebook from applying its hate speech rules to some BJP leaders and “other Hindutva
individuals and groups.” Tiwari registered an FIR against Das with the Raipur police on
August 17.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/08/18/ankhi-das-murdabad-what-led-facebook-indias-
public-policy-chief-to-go-to-police

9. Rachita Taneja, Delhi

On December 5, Aditya Kashyap, a law student and member of the student union associated
with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), filed a petition with the to the Supreme Court calling
for it to initiate criminal contempt against cartoonist Rachita Taneja’s comics which he says
have “threatened the very existence of the Supreme Court”. Kashyap’s complaint cites three
of Taneja’s illustrations, one of which depicted prime minister Narendra Modi in a
transaction with former chief justice Rajan Gogoi, and the other two of which commented on
legal proceedings against journalist Arnab Goswami.
https://cpj.org/2020/12/indian-government-gives-go-ahead-for-contempt-proceedings-
against-cartoonist/

Part III. FIRs against journalists:

1. Ashwini Saini, Himachal Pradesh

Ashwini Saini, a journalist in Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh, had five FIRs registered
against him during the lockdown. Saini is a contributor to a Mandi LIVE, a Facebook page
that publishes news on Mandi district, Himachal Pradesh.

On April 8, Saini was booked under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 54 of
the Disaster Management Act for his Mandi LIVE video report on the lack of rations for
migrant workers in Bharajwanoo village, Mandi district. Saini was accused of spreading fake
news.

Three more FIRs were registered against Saini on April 13. These were for his reports on
brick kilns operating despite the lockdown. The kilns were shut down, but the police booked
Saini under IPC Sections 451, 504, 506 and 188. His car was seized by the local police on
April 14 and he was booked under IPC Section 188, and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.

https://thewire.in/media/covid-19-journalists-arrested-booked-report

2. Om Sharma, Himachal Pradesh

On March 29, the Himachal Pradesh police filed an FIR against journalist Om Sharma for
going live on Facebook and reporting on hungry migrant labourers protesting in the industrial
town of Baddi. His reportage was termed ‘sensational/fake news’ in the FIR. A second FIR
against Sharma was lodged on April 26, for sharing a news report of Amar Ujala on
Facebook. The report said a certain business would have to close for a few months if any of
the employees tested COVID-19 positive. A third FIR was filed a day later for his criticism
on Facebook of the Solan district administration over its directive to shut down shops. His
curfew pass was withdrawn after that.

https://thewire.in/media/himachal-pradesh-firs-journalists

3. Rahul Zori, Maharashtra

On May 16, the Maharashtra Police booked Rahul Zori, a reporter with the news
channel TV9 Marathi, for reporting on irregularities in the Hadakhed relief camp for migrants
in Shirpur tehsil, Dhule district, Maharashtra. Zori was booked under penal sections for
obstructing a public servant from doing their duty, defamation, publishing matter that is
known to be defamatory.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/26/its-just-wrong-maharashtra-journalist-booked-for-
reporting-on-migrant-relief-camps

4. Ravindra Saxena, Uttar Pradesh

On May 18, the Uttar Pradesh administration lodged an FIR against journalist Ravindra
Saxena, a journalist at Today-24 news portal, for reporting on the mismanagement and
negligence at a quarantine centre in Sitapur district. The district administration filed a case
against him through a Scheduled Caste employee at the Sub Divisional Magistrate office,
accusing the journalist of violating the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and the Disaster Management Act.

https://thewire.in/media/up-fir-against-journalist-for-report-on-mismanagement-at-
quarantine-centre

5. K. K. Saxena, Madhya Pradesh

On 27 March 2020, an FIR was lodged against journalist K. K. Saxena for having attended
the Congress leader Kamal Nath’s last press conference as chief minister on March 20. The
journalist’s 26-year-old daughter had tested positive for Covid-19 on March 22. He was
booked under IPC sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant),
269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and 270 (malignant
act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life).

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/03/25/journalist-in-bhopal-tests-positive-for-
coronavirus-attended-kamal-nath-press-conference

6. The Wire and editor Siddharth Varadarajan, Uttar Pradesh

On 1 April 2020, the UP police in Faizabad registered an FIR against The Wire and its editor
Siddharth Varadarajan for reporting that chief minister Yogi Adityanath attended a public
religious event in Ayodhya on March 25, the day after the prime minister had announced the
nationwide Covid-19 lockdown. He was booked under Sections 188 (disobedience of an
order issued by a public servant) and 505 (2) (statements creating or promoting enmity,
hatred or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code. Over 3,300 citizens urged the
Uttar Pradesh government to withdraw the first information report and drop all criminal
proceedings against the publication and it’s editor, which they said was a direct attack on
press freedom.
https://scroll.in/latest/959221/drop-fir-against-the-wire-editor-covid-19-shouldnt-be-used-to-
gag-press-say-over-3300-citizens

7. Jagat Bains, Himachal Pradesh

Three FIRs were registered against Jagat Bains, a reporter with News18 Himachal, for his
reportage on Covid-19 related issues including denial of ration to the migrant workers. On
March 30, 2020, an FIR was filed against him for reporting on how rations were not reaching
migrant workers in parts of Solan district of Himachal Pradesh and his curfew pass was
revoked. A second FIR was filed for his April 25 report about denial of rations to the migrant
workers in Sallewal village in Solan district; he was booked under Sections 188, 269 and 270
of the Indian Penal Code. The third FIR was filed for a report he did on 23 April on private
vehicles crossing the sealed borders in Baddi subdivision. He was booked under IPC Sections
188, 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection) and 270 (malignant act likely to spread
infection of disease dangerous to life). According to the FIR: “Press reporter Bains circulated
videos of the administration without any reason. He also violated lockdown guidelines.”

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/12/himachal-pradeshs-journalists-face-firs-
harassment-for-reporting-on-government-failures

8. Vishal Anand, Himachal Pradesh

In mid-April, journalist Vishal Anand, who is associated with the channel Aaj Tak, was
accused of misrepresentation and booked by the local authorities in Dalhousie for using
pictures of Gandhi Chowk in Dalhousie for a story on Covid-19 in Chamba district. Anand
claims that there was no basis for the FIR as Dalhousie falls in Chamba district. Anand told a
media outlet that lodging such complaints only indicated that “some officials are misusing
power and trying to intimidate journalists” and for this comment, another FIR was filed
against him.
https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/12/himachal-pradeshs-journalists-face-firs-
harassment-for-reporting-on-government-failures

9. Masrat Zahra, Jammu & Kashmir

On April 18, 2020, the Jammu and Kashmir Police booked freelance photojournalist Masrat
Zahra under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for her posts on social media
which they deemed as “anti-national posts” and motivated by “criminal intention to induce
the youth and promote offence against public tranquillity.”

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-kashmiri-female-photojournalist-
booked-under-uapa-for-anti-national-social-media-posts/351127

10. Gowhar Geelani, Jammu & Kashmir

On April 21, the Cyber Police Station Kashmir Zone booked journalist and author Gowhar
Geelani under UAPA as well as Section 505 of the IPC for allegedly “indulging in unlawful
activities” through social media that are “prejudicial to the national integrity, sovereignty and
security of India”. The police alleged that Geelani had been glorifying terrorism in the
Kashmir Valley through his social media posts and an FIR was registered against him at the
Cyber Police Station in Srinagar.

https://scroll.in/latest/959871/j-k-fir-against-journalist-gowhar-geelani-for-unlawful-
activities-on-social-media
11. Somdev Sharma, Himachal Pradesh
On May 16, 2020, Somdev Sharma, a Manali-based correspondent for Punjab Kesari, was
booked by the Himachal Pradesh police after he reported on the administration’s laxity in
quarantining inter-state travellers. Kullu Superintendent of Police Gaurav Singh stated that
Sharma had falsely written in his report that a person entered the district illegally without a
pass and hence created panic.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/12/himachal-pradeshs-journalists-face-firs-
harassment-for-reporting-on-government-failures

12. Jai Singh Chibber, Punjab

On 22 May, Jai Singh Chibber, reporter from the Punjabi Jagran newspaper was booked by
the Punjab Police for writing a news report about an unnamed Congress minister for
following the suggestions of astrologers. He was booked under Sections 188 and 505 of the
IPC (disobeying a public official and making statements which incite the commission of an
offence), and Section 67A of the IT Act (obscenity).

https://thewire.in/media/punjab-police-beat-seniorjournalist-reporter-booked-for-astrology-
story-on-minister

13. Tansen Tiwari, Madhya Pradesh

On May 24, journalist Tansen Tiwari was booked by the Madhya Pradesh Police for
allegedly referring to Bharatiya Janata Party leaders as “gappu” (braggart) and “tadipar”
(externed) in a social media post. He was booked under IPC sections 294 (public acts of
obscenity) and 500 (defamation) and section 67 of the Information Technology Act
(publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form).

https://thewire.in/media/gwalior-fir-journalist-bjp-leaders-gappu-tadipar

14. Vinod Dua, Delhi

On June 4, Delhi Police booked journalist Vinod Dua with an FIR filed by BJP spokesperson
Naveen Kumar, for “misreporting the Delhi riots”, “false contextual reporting” when
Jyotiraditya Scindia joined the BJP, and his comments on the Vyapam scam. The Delhi High
Court in its order has temporarily stayed the investigation against Vinod Dua holding that
there's no prima facie case against Mr Dua to warrant the registration of FIR.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/fir-against-journalist-vinod-dua-on-bjp-mans-
complaint-6444910/

15. Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, Maharashtra and other states

On May 2, the Mumbai Police lodged an FIR against Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab
Goswami for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by making derogatory remarks regarding
a mosque located in Bandra. Prior to this, on April 24, the Supreme Court had granted
protection to him for three weeks, against any coercive steps in connection with FIRs lodged
against him in various states for alleged defamatory remarks on Congress chief Sonia Gandhi
and the Palghar lynching which took place in Maharashtra. On April 27, he was reportedly
interrogated for over 12 hours at a police station. The Supreme Court on 11 May extended the
interim protection from arrest granted to him.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/may/05/arnab-goswami-moves-sc-seeks-
quashing-of-fresh-fir-lodged-against-him-in-mumbai-2139569.html

16. Zee News TV Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary

On May 7, the Kerala Police filed an FIR against Sudhir Chaudhary, editor-in-chief of Zee
News and prime-time show host of Daily News And Analysis (DNA) on Zee News, under non-
bailable sections for presenting a controversial programme that allegedly offended the
Muslim religion. The FIR read, “On 11 March 2020, Zee News TV channel broadcast DNA
programme. The accused presented a programme that is offending the Muslim religion.” In
his prime time show on 11 March, Chaudhary presented a so called “jihad chart” detailing
different “types of jihad” in a flowchart.

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/zee-news-sudhir-chaudhary-booked-by-kerala-police-
for-jihad-chart-episode

17. FIR against four journalists, Uttar Pradesh

On April 13, the Bhadohi police in Uttar Pradesh lodged an FIR against two editors and two
reporters at IANS and Business Insider for reporting that a local woman had thrown her five
children into a river because of lockdown-induced hunger. (IANS is a news agency and the
Business Insider is a news website under the Times Group.) The police claimed the woman
had done so after quarrelling with her husband. The story was published by IANS, and it was
picked up by the Business Insider. The FIR only mentioned an “editor” and a “reporter” from
each outlet, without naming them. No journalist from either organisation has been
approached by the police so far. The four journalists have been booked under Sections
505(1)(b) and 188 of the IPC.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/07/gagging-the-media-a-list-of-indian-journalists-
booked-arrested-assaulted-during-the-lockdown

18. Aashish Avasthi, UP

On May 20, the Press Council of India sought a report from the Uttar Pradesh Government
with respect to an FIR lodged against Aashish Avasthi, editor of Media Break, for the
publication of a news item regarding problems being faced by home guards during Covid-19.

https://presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/EnglishPressreleasetwenty.pdf

19. K.N. Nagegowda, Sunil, H.S. Mahesh and Madan, Karnataka:

Krishik Gowda, son of MLC K.T. Srikantegowda, had lodged a police complaint against
these four reporters in Mandya, alleging that they abused his father and assaulted him at
Ambedkar Bhavan during a covid test camp for journalists. The police filed FIR against all
four reporters.

20. Supriya Sharma, Uttar Pradesh

In June, an FIR was filed against Supriya Sharma, a journalist at Scroll.in, and the news
website’s editor-in-chief (not named in the FIR) by the UP Police for a report on the effects
of the Covid-19 lockdown in prime minister Narendra Modi’s constituency, Varanasi. The
FIR alleged misrepresentation of facts. She was booked under Sections 501 and 269 of the
Indian Penal Code.
https://scroll.in/latest/965057/rsf-journalists-criticise-fir-against-scroll-ins-supriya-sharma-
call-it-attempt-to-intimidate

21. Amitabh Rawat, Uttar Pradesh

On August 6, an FIR was registered against Rawat for publishing the video of a minor girl
cleaning the floor at the district hospital in UP’s Deoria district. Her ailing mother had lost
control over her bladder and the irate staff forced the little girl to wipe and clean the floor.
The police report alleged that he was indulging in the “despicable work” of maligning the
image of the Uttar Pradesh government. He was booked under Sections 506 (criminal
intimidation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 389 (Putting
person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion) 385 (Putting person in
fear of injury in order to commit extortion) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act, according to the First Information Report (FIR) filed in the
case.

https://www.newsclick.in/UP-FIR-scribe-allegedly-maligning-government

22. Sharat Kumar and Lokendra Singh, Rajasthan

On October 1, the Ashok Gehlot-led government filed a case against Aaj Tak journalist
Sharat Kumar and former deputy CM Sachin Pilot’s media advisor Lokendra Singh, accusing
them of spreading “fake news” about the alleged phone tapping of MLAs during the political
crisis in the state in July. Singh was booked under Sections 505 (1) (whoever makes,
publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report), 505 (2) (statements creating or
promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes), 120 B (criminal conspiracy) of the
Indian Penal Code, and section 76 of the Information and Technology Act (the Act allows
police to confiscate any kind of gadget related to information sharing).

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-fir-against-sachin-pilots-media-
manager-rajasthans-senior-journalist-for-reporting-mlas-phone-tapping/361720

Part IV. Freedom of speech and related cases:

1. Disha Ravi, Nikita Jacob and Shantanu

Disha Ravi, a 22-year-old climate activist, was arrested by the Cyber Cell team of Delhi
Police from Bengaluru on February 13, 2021, for allegedly sharing with Greta Thunberg a
‘toolkit’ related to the farmer’s protest against the Centre’s three farm laws. The Delhi Police
also issued non-bailable warrants for Mumbai-based lawyer Nikita Jacob and climate activist
Shantanu for this matter.

Shortly after Thunberg tweeted the toolkit document, the police alleged that it had caused the
January 26 tractor parade violence. The Delhi Police registered a case against the authors of
the toolkit, which Disha Ravi, Nikita Jacob and Shantanu had edited or contributed to.

The police states that Poetic Justice Foundation – allegedly a Khalistani group – had
contacted Nikita Jacob to organise a ‘tweet storm’ ahead of the Republic Day protest by
farmers. They also said that Disha Ravi, Nikita Jacob and Shantanu were present on a Zoom
call with Poetic Justice and others to plan their campaign ahead of the tractor rally by farmers
on January 26.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/disha-ravi-nikita-jacob-and-shantanu-created-
controversial-toolkit-delhi-police-212782
2. Kannan Gopinathan
On April 21, 2020, a police case was registered against Kannan Gopinathan – who had
resigned from the Indian Administrative Service in August 2019 – for not joining duty as
directed by the government amid the coronavirus pandemic. The FIR against him was
registered under the Epidemic Diseases Act and the Disaster Management Act at Moti
Daman police station in the Union Territories of Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar
Haveli. Gopinathan also faced a charge under Section 188 of the IPC for refusing to obey a
government order, said police inspector Liladhar Makwana. The ex-IAS officer had resigned
in 2019 over the restrictions on citizens after Article 370 was abrogated in Kashmir.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/fir-against-ias-officer-kannan-gopinathan-for-not-doing-
duty-amid-coronavirus-crisis-2217883

3. Nodeep Kaur
Nodeep Kaur, a 24-year-old Dalit labour rights activist and member of Mazdoor Adhikar
Sangathan – one of the many worker unions protesting with the farmers against the
government’s new laws – was arrested from the Singhu border on January 12. From a family
of farm labourers, Kaur was working part-time in a factory in Haryana’s Kundli industrial
area since the lockdown lifted to arrange funds for her future education. She was arrested for
her trade union activities on charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, obstructing public servant
in discharge of public functions, voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt to deter
public servant from his duty, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge
of his duty, snatching, house trespass, extortion, criminal intimidation, and attempt to murder.
Kaur’s family and colleagues say the protest she was arrested for was peaceful, and that the
group had gone to demand the wages of a worker who had not been paid. Her family also
alleges custodial torture and assault by the Haryana police.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56071706

4. Munawar Faruqui, along with Edwin Anthony, Prakhar Vyas, Priyam Vyas and
Nalin Yadav
On January 1, 2021, 30-year-old comic Munawar Faruqui was arrested in Indore, Madhya
Pradesh, right before his show began. The case was filed by Eklavya Gaur, the son of
Bharatiya Janata Party legislator Malini Gaur, based on a YouTube video in which Faruqui
mentions Lord Ram in a joke. The Madhya Pradesh police booked him, along with the
show’s organisers, under various IPC sections including 295A, which relates to “deliberate
and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings.”
https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/02/10/arrested-before-he-could-perform-how-munawar-
faruqui-spent-a-month-in-jail

5. The Caravan, Kisan Ekta Morcha and over 200 more twitter handles
On February 1, Twitter withheld several accounts, including that of Caravan magazine and
Kisan Ekta Morcha, a joint front representing the farmers protesting against the Centre’s
agricultural laws. This was in compliance with an order by the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology to block around 250 tweets/Twitter accounts which were using the
#ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide hashtag on January 30. The accounts were blocked under
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Hours later, Twitter restored many of these
handles as the accounts were not in violation of its policy.
https://scroll.in/latest/985648/twitter-withholds-accounts-of-caravan-kisan-ekta-morcha-and-
others-in-response-to-legal-request
6. Kunal Kamra
After Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami was granted interim bail by the Supreme
Court on November 11, 2020, comic Kunal Kamra made a series of tweets critical of the
Supreme Court. Several cases were filed against him shortly after, and Attorney General K.
K. Venugopal gave his mandatory approval to initiate contempt of court proceedings related
to the tweets.

On February 18, a sessions court in Varanasi admitted a revision petition filed against a
magistrate order that dismissed a criminal complaint seeking registration of a first
information report against comedian Kunal Kamra. The comedian was accused of insulting
the Indian flag by tweeting a morphed picture of the Supreme Court building with the ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party flag flying atop it. The magistrate court had in December dismissed
the criminal complaint filed by advocate Saurabh Tiwari.
https://theprint.in/judiciary/comedian-kunal-kamra-faces-contempt-proceedings-for-his-
tweets-criticising-sc-bail-to-arnab/542943/

7. Safoora Zargar, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Sharjeel Imam

and others
Over the last year, the Delhi police has arrested several students and activists – including
Safoora Zargar, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Sharjeel Imam – for
allegedly conspiring to incite violence during the Delhi riots in February 2020. The accused,
who were actively opposing the centre’s Citizenship Amendment Act at the time, have been
charged with various IPC sections, including 120 B (criminal conspiracy) read with sections
109 (abetment), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) 124A (sedition), 147 and
148 (rioting).
https://thewire.in/rights/delhi-police-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-uapa

8. Balan, K. Srinivasan and Anupur Selvaraj

On February 2, civil rights activists Balan, K. Srinivasan and Anupur Selvaraj of the Tamil
National People’s Front were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and
section 124A of the IPC for raising anti-government slogans during the funeral of ‘Maoist’
Manivasakam. The organisation claimed that the arrests were made to intimidate them from
continuing their campaign against the BJP.
http://cms.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2021/feb/13/cong-tvk-slam-arrestof-
activists-under-uapa-2263362.html

9. Sharjeel Usmani
Aligarh Muslim University student Sharjeel Usmani was charged with ‘promoting enmity
between different groups’ in an FIR filed in Pune on February 2. The FIR was against
Usmani’s speech at the Elgar Parishad event which took place in Pune in 2021, where he
spoke of state repression and the Muslim community. A subsequent FIR was registered in UP
against the same speech under IPC sections 124 A (sedition), 153 A (promoting enmity
between different groups), 295 A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious
feelings), 298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings) along
with sections of the IT Act.
https://thewire.in/rights/sharjeel-usmani-fir-sedition-elgar-parishad

10. Sameet Thakkar

In October 2020, twitter user Sameet Thakkar, who is followed by Prime Minister Narendra
Modi on the microblogging website, was arrested for allegedly making objectionable
comments against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Environment Minister Aaditya
Thackeray on social media. According to the police, Thakkar, a Nagpur resident, had tweeted
objectionable posts about Thackerays and Energy Minister Nitin Raut on June 1, June 30 and
July 1, where he had addressed Maharashtra's Chief Minister as ‘Aurangzeb’ and Aaditya
(his) ‘Penguin beta’. The police booked Thakkar under relevant sections of the Indian Penal
Code for obscenity (Section 292), defamation (Section 500) and Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/who-is-sameet-thakkar-twitter-user-followed-by-
pm-modi-arrested-for-making-objectionable-comments-against-uddhav-aaditya

11. Aakar Patel

An FIR was filed on July 2, 2020, against Aakar Patel, columnist and former executive
director of Amnesty International India, for allegedly posting ‘offensive’ tweets against the
Ghanchi community in Gujarat. The Surat City police registered the FIR filed by Purnesh
Modi, a ruling BJP MLA from Surat West constituency. The complainant listed three tweets
posted by Patel. In the first two tweets, Patel mentioned that Prime Minister Narendra Modi
belonged to the Ghanchi caste, which was added to the Other Backward Caste list in 1999 by
then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s regime. Patel went on to say that the community
is “well-off” and “meat-eating” and that Modi has taken on the manner of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh and has turned vegetarian. Patel was booked under Sections 153 A, 295
A, 505 (1) B, 505 (1) C, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Most of these sections are
non-bailable.
https://thewire.in/rights/aakaar-patel-arrest-tweets-modi-caste

12. Awadesh Chaudhary

Awadesh Chaudhary – an ad hoc computer operator in the Sidhauli block office of UP’s
Sitapur – was arrested in January for an ‘offensive post’ against Prime Minister Narendra
Modi on social media. He had tweeted on Modi’s caste and religion. The UP police said that
“the post would have led to riots.”
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/up-man-held-for-offensive-tweet-against-
pm-narendra-modi/articleshow/80079466.cms

13. Bihar government’s administrative order

On January 21, the Bihar government issued an administrative order making it a cybercrime
to post offensive, objectionable or critical content on social media against the state
government, its ministers, officials, members of Parliament and members of the legislative
assembly. Individuals and organisations who post such content will invite ‘appropriate
action’ under the law, the order said.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/patna-news/objectionable-social-media-posts-against-
nitish-govt-now-a-crime-in-bihar-101611359215329.html

14. Rakesh Tikait

In December 2020, Bharatiya Kisan Union leader Rakesh Tikait was booked by the Haryana
police for allegedly hurting the sentiments of Brahmins by his remarks at a speech at the
Atoha farm protest in Palwal. He was accused of having said that the temples and pundits
were not giving enough support to the ongoing farm agitation.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/haryana-rakesh-tikait-booked-for-
offensive-remarks-on-temples-after-brahmin-groups-object/articleshow/80019632.cms
15. Sunaina Holey
In July 2020, 38-year-old Sunaina Holey was arrested by Mumbai cyber police for allegedly
sharing a morphed picture of Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray on social media,
as well as her ‘objectionable’ tweets on the chief minister's son and Maharashtra minister
Aaditya Thackeray.
https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/crime/article/woman-shares-morphed-picture-
of-maharashtra-cm-on-social-media-abuses-minister-aaditya-thackeray-arrested/633221

16. Satya Prakash Tiwari

The 28-year-old accountancy student from Mumbai was booked for posting ‘offensive’
material on Facebook about Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar. The FIR was registered in December 2019 under the IPC Section 153A
(promoting enmity between different groups on the bases of religion) and the Information
Technology Act.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/no-pre-arrest-bail-for-ca-student-booked-
for-offensive-posts-against-mahatma-gandhi-jawaharlal-nehru/articleshow/79031958.cms

17. Sudhadip Das

In August 2020, the West Bengal police arrested a 24-year-old BJP worker named Sudhadip
Das for allegedly posting ‘offensive’ content against Trinamool Congress leader and nephew
of State Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Abhishek Banerjee, reported India Today. As per
the report, Sudhadip was arrested from his residence in North 24 Pargana district, following a
complaint by a TMC worker at Habra police station. He was booked under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) Sections 67 (publishing of obscene material), 504 (provocation), 505 (spreading
rumours), and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bengal-police-arrest-bjp-worker-over-offensive-post-
targeting-tmc-mp-abhishek-banerjee-1713328-2020-08-20

18. Arun Yadav

A law student of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University was arrested on January 16
for his social media post against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief
Minister Yogi Adityanath. He was suspended from the university and booked under Section
153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc), 469 (whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic record 1 forged shall harm the reputation of any party) of the IPC, and also under
Section 66 of IT Act (Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication
service, etc).
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/jan/18/law-student-arrested-in-gorakhpur-
for-vulgar-post-against-pm-modi-yogi-adityanath-2251866.html

19. Souradeep Sengupta

Souradeep Sengupta, a 25-year-old guest lecturer at a college in Silchar, Assam, was arrested
in February 2020, and later sent to judicial custody for posting derogatory remarks against the
BJP, the RSS, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and ‘Sanatan dharma’. In his post, Sengupta
had accused the BJP and the RSS of “trying to recreate Godhra in Delhi” and had called
Modi a mass murderer.

The FIR was registered based on a complaint from a member of the Akhil Bharatiya
Vidyarthi Parishad. Sengupta was booked under Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts,
intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious
beliefs), Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.,) and Section 507 (criminal intimidation by
anonymous communication), as well as Section 66A of the IT Act.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2020/feb/29/assam-college-teacher-
arrested-for-offensive-posts-against-delhi-riots-pm-modi-2110276.html

20. Congress worker Sudhanshu Bajpai and his friend Ashwani Yadav
In March 2020, the UP police arrested Congress worker Sudhanshu Bajpai and his friend
Ashwani Yadav for putting up a poster outside the BJP’s Lucknow office. The poster, with
large photographs of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath and deputy chief minister
Keshav Prasad Maurya, listed the ‘criminal records’ of Adityanath, Prasad and five other BJP
leaders – Sangeet Som, Suresh Rana, Sanjeev Balyan, Sadhvi Prachi and Umesh Malik.

They were charged under multiple sections of the IPC including Section 505 (1) (b) of the
Indian Penal Code (“statements conducing to public mischief with intent to cause, or which is
likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person
may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility”).
https://thewire.in/rights/congress-workers-arrested-for-putting-up-anti-adityanath-posters-in-
uttar-pradesh

21. Abdul Hannan

In March 2020, the UP police arrested a district court lawyer in Kanpur on sedition charges
for retweeting a video of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and calling him a terrorist. Abdul
Hannan had commented on a tweet by State Information Department's Media Advisor,
Shalabh Mani Tripathi. The tweet comprised a video of Adityanath's Vidhan Sabha speech
where he supported cane charge on the people involved in protests against CAA and NRC.
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/lawyer-arrested-on-sedition-charge-in-kanpur-
for-offensive-tweet-against-cm-yogi-adityanath/1900447/

Part V. Miscellaneous:

1. Paramesh, Telangana
On May 22, Paramesh, a journalist with Telugu news channel V6, alleged that his house was
demolished due to his report on an MLA’s birthday celebration where over 500 people were
present in violation of lockdown rules. Municipal officials in Narayankhed said that the house
was demolished as it was constructed without a permit.
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/telugu-journo-alleges-home-demolished-after-report-
mla-s-b-day-bash-500-people-125123

2. Uttkarsh Chaturvedi, Maharashtra

On 25 March 2020, Uttkarsh Chaturvedi, deputy news editor with ET Now, a leading
business news channel, alleged that he was beaten up by policemen while reporting on
lockdown in Thane district, Maharashtra
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2020/india/tv-journalist-beaten-up-by-cops-during-reporting-
on-lockdown.html

3. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai, Jammu & Kashmir

On April 11, 2020, Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai, a journalist working for the Srinagar-based
English daily Kashmir Observer, was arrested and detained for two days at Sumbal police
station in Bandipore district of Jammu and Kashmir. He had gone there to inspect the
availability of the doctors and cross-check reports about possible violation of the lockdown in
the Naidkhai area in Bandipore. At the police station, the SHO Muneeb-ul-Islam slapped him
several times and another policeman beat him with a lathi. The police filed an FIR and
booked him under charges which included “violating the lockdown rules'' and “interfering in
the professional work of the officials”. He was released only after securing bail from the
court.
https://thefederal.com/states/north/jammu-and-kashmir/kashmir-journalists-continue-to-be-
harassed-summoned-and-intimidated/

4. Gowhar Ali Wani, Jammu & Kashmir

On April 15, freelance journalist Gowhar Ali Wani alleged that the police beat him up and
arrested his father in Handwara town in Jammu & Kashmir. The journalist said he had
protested against the Station House Officer’s “disgusting language” at Villagam police
station, following which two policemen came to his house and asked him to come with them.
When he asked why, they slapped and assaulted him. “I can’t divulge details of the matter
until he is present here,” SHO Sulaiman Khan told The Kashmir Walla. “You can speak to
our senior officers for anything further.”
https://thekashmirwalla.com/2020/04/handwara-scribe-accuses-police-of-assault-father-
detained/

5. Two journalists, Odisha

On May 3, a reporter and a cameraperson from Odia TV channel Kanak News were attacked
by a forest guard near Balukhand Konark Wildlife Sanctuary in Puri district of Odisha. The
two had gone near the sanctuary to document a report related to Cyclone Fani. Two forest
officials identified as Tapan Nayak and Biraja Mohapatra were suspended.
https://sambadenglish.com/forest-guard-attacks-journalists-in-odisha-breaks-camera/

6. Samrat Pradhan, Karnataka

On April 20, 2020, Samrat Pradhan, a business correspondent of a magazine and his cousin
Amit Kar were allegedly tortured at Hennur police station in Bangalore, Karnataka. They had
stepped out to buy medicines and groceries when they were stopped by a police constable and
asked to show their vehicle pass. When the cousins pointed that they did not need one to buy
essentials the constable started hitting them. They were taken to the police station and
allegedly tortured for over 15 hours. When informed about the incident, Deputy
Commissioner of Police (East) SD Sharanappa, checked with the Hennur police station and
denied the allegations.
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/crime/two-ne-residents-tortured-in-police-
station-for-15-hours/articleshowprint/75282066.cms?prtpage=1

7. Subrat Kumar Swain, Odisha

On April 22, 2020, Subrat Kumar Swain, correspondent with Odia daily Sambad was
allegedly beaten up by a police sub-inspector identified as Ashutosh Mohanty while he was
taking his ailing child to a hospital in Keonjhar district, Odisha. “Although I had the
necessary lockdown pass and showed my identity card, the police officer misbehaved with
me and beat me,” alleged Swain.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/odisha-journalist-taking-sick-son-to-hospital-
assaulted-by-cop-for-flouting-lockdown/story-85O55zHwPDCdsbqWFtO1GK.html
8. Prasanjit Dutta, Nagaland
On May 8, Nagaland Page journalist Prasanjit Dutta was assaulted by a government railway
police (GRP) official while he was returning home from work near Dimapur Railway Station.
According to Dutta, the GRP official asked if Dutta was a Muslim and when he said he was a
Bengali, the official slapped him again and said Nagaland was not his state and if wanted to
spread the virus, he (Dutta) should go to his own state. After the accused official apologised
to Dutta, the Dimapur-based newspaper Nagaland Page withdrew its complaint against the
official.
https://scroll.in/latest/961530/nagaland-newspaper-withdraws-fir-against-police-officer-for-
assaulting-journalist-after-apology

9. Major Singh Punjabi, Punjab

On May 22, Major Singh Punjabi, a journalist with the Rozana Pehredar newspaper was
severely beaten by two police officers in Mohali when he went to cover the meeting of two
groups at a local gurudwara. Despite informing that he was a journalist, the policemen
forcibly pushed him in a private vehicle bearing a Haryana number and took him to the
phase-1 police station at Mohali.
https://samsn.ifj.org/india-government-intensifies-clampdown-to-media-over-covid-19-
reporting/

10. Mahadev, Odisha

On May 23, a journalist called Mahadev Nayak was held hostage at a temporary medical
centre (TMC), a quarantine centre for Covid-19 at Korua panchayat under Naugaon block in
Jagatsinghpur district of Odisha. He had published stories on Covid-19 guideline violations
by the local sarpanch in his newspaper (name not given).
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2020/may/24/sarpanch-holds-scribe-
hostage-for-reporting-facts-2147338.html

11. Tonga Mrina, Arunachal Times

Tonga Mrina, editor of Arunachal Times, received several online threats after publishing the
story "Wildlife hunting on spike, say forest officials" on April 19, 2020. On May 19, 2020,
the Press Council of India expressed concern over the case, and sought a report on the same
from the government of Arunachal Pradesh.
https://presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/PRCaseNo.pdf

12. Israel Moses, Tamil Nadu

On November 8, journalist Israel Moses who worked in a Tamil television channel (name not
given) was hacked to death in Tamil Nadu’s Kancheepuram district. Moses reported on local
problems and used to expose the undercover operations of “anti-social elements” in the
region. He had received threats form a local gang the previous week, after carrying out a
story on ganja sales.
https://scroll.in/latest/978121/tamil-nadu-tv-journalist-hacked-to-death-by-alleged-drug-
dealers

13. Shubham Mani Tripathi, Uttar Pradesh

On June 19, Shubham Mani Tripathi, a reporter for a Kanpur-based newspaper was killed in
Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh, for reporting on a ‘sand mafia’ and illegal land grabbers
active in the region.
https://thewire.in/media/shubham-mani-tripathi-journalist-killed-unnao-sand-mafia
14. Azad Rizvi, Uttar Pradesh
on October 2, Azad Rizvi, a Lucknow based freelance journalist, was assaulted by the UP
police while he was reporting on protests in the city, in the aftermath of the rape of a Dalit
girl in Hathras a few weeks earlier. He stated that he was beaten up by 7-8 policemen, even
though he had told them he was a journalist and was simply covering the protest site. After
assaulting him, he said, the police tried to break his mobile phone and confiscated his
memory card.
http://tehelka.com/media-freedom-at-stake-amid-arrests-of-journalists/

15. Rakesh Singh, Uttar Pradesh

On November 28, Rakesh Singh, a journalist with a local Hindi newspaper Rashtriya
Swaroop, died from burn injuries after his house was set on fire in Balrampur district in Uttar
Pradesh the previous day. On November 30, the police arrested three suspects in connection
to the alleged arson, one of them the son of a local village head, reports said. The three have
not yet been charged. Singh had been reporting on the village head ahead of a local election.
https://cpj.org/2020/12/uttar-pradesh-journalist-dies-after-alleged-arson-attack/

16. Parag Bhuyan, Assam

On November 12, Parag Bhuyan, a journalist with Assamese-language news channel Pratidin
Time, died in a hospital after being injured in a hit-and-run incident on November 11 outside
his home in Kakopathar town in the Tinsukia district of Assam. On November 12, the police
arrested the driver, a commercial transporter of tea leaves, and his assistant, and confiscated
the car. Bhuyan’s brother Jagadish Bhuyan, a former state minister, said his brother was
under threat, and that individuals also approached him to stop his brother’s investigations into
cow, coal, and timber smuggling.
https://cpj.org/2020/11/journalist-parag-bhuyan-killed-in-hit-and-run-in-indias-assam-state/

17. Parashar Biswas, Tripura

On September 12, Parashar Biswas, a reporter with Bengali daily Syandan Patrika, was
beaten up by unidentified people at his home in Tripura’s Dhalai district. The attack came
shortly after Biswas posted a video on his personal Facebook page accusing the state
government of mishandling the pandemic and unfairly blaming journalists and criticising
Tripura chief minister Biplab Deb’s comments condemning local news coverage of the
coronavirus pandemic.
https://cpj.org/2020/09/indian-journalist-attacked-and-newspaper-threatened-in-tripura-state-
following-chief-ministers-criticism-of-press/

18. Ashok Dasgupta

On September 12, seven to eight men threatened Ashok Dasgupta, a reporter for local news
channel News Today and the Tripura Khabar newspaper, in South Tripura while he was
reporting on a water shortage in the area. Dasgupta did not file a police complaint.

https://cpj.org/2020/09/indian-journalist-attacked-and-newspaper-threatened-in-tripura-state-
following-chief-ministers-criticism-of-press/

19. Shahid Tantray, Prabhjit Singh and a female journalist; Delhi

On August 11, Shahid Tantray, Prabhjit Singh, and a female journalist who asked not to be
identified, journalists from The Caravan were attacked by a group of people in Delhi’s North
Ghonda neighborhood when they photographed saffron Hindu flags flying in the area, as part
of the magazine’s investigative series on the riots that took place in the capital in February.

https://cpj.org/2020/08/journalists-with-the-caravan-magazine-assaulted-by-anti-muslim-
crowd-in-delhi/

20. Anirban Chattopadhyay, West Bengal

On April 5, Kolkata police opened an investigation into Anirban Chattopadhyay, then-editor
of Bengali-language daily Anandabazar Patrika, after Mitra Chatterjee, a government official
from West Bengal’s Ministry of Information and Cultural Affairs, filed a complaint accusing
the newspaper of publishing “unauthorized and unidentified information with regard to the
Corona related death toll figures as well as Corona affected persons.” Chattopadhyay was
summoned for questioning by the police on May 25.

https://cpj.org/2020/07/journalists-in-india-assaulted-targeted-with-investigations-amid-
covid-19-pandemic/

21. Virendra Singh, Rajasthan

On May 26, Rajasthan police in Pali district opened a criminal investigation into Virendra
Singh Rajpurohit, an independent journalist who runs the YouTube channel News 30
Rajasthan, on charges of extortion and defamation for his critical analysis on the channel of
the death of a labour leader in police custody. According to Rajpurohit and court records, the
Rajasthan High Court ordered the police not to arrest the journalist while conducting its
investigation, but stipulated that if the investigation produces evidence to detain Rajpurohit,
that the journalist must be given a 15-day warning before his arrest.

https://cpj.org/2020/07/journalists-in-india-assaulted-targeted-with-investigations-amid-
covid-19-pandemic/
22. Naveen Kumar, Delhi
On March 23, Naveen Kumar, a reporter with Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, was stopped and
beaten by the police in New Delhi while he was on his way to his office. Kumar said that the
police stopped his car at a checkpoint for allegedly violating the lockdown. He said he
showed the officers his press card, but they refused to let him go and started beating him.

https://cpj.org/2020/03/journalists-assaulted-by-police-amid-coronavirus-l/

23. Ravi Reddy, Mendu Srinivas, Mohammed Hussain; Hyderabad

On March 23, Ravi Reddy, the Hyderabad bureau chief for The Hindu newspaper was
attacked by three police officers when he asked them to allow him through a barricade on his
way home from work. Police in Hyderabad also beat and insulted Mendu Srinivas, political
bureau chief of Telugu-language daily AndhraJyothy, and hit Mohammed Hussain, a reporter
for the English news website Siasat, for alleged lockdown violations while they were
returning from work.

https://cpj.org/2020/03/journalists-assaulted-by-police-amid-coronavirus-l/

24. AsiaNet TV, MediaOne TV

On March 6, The government of India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued two
orders to channels AsiaNet TV and MediaOne TV to stop airing any programs for 48 hours as
a penalty for their coverage of riots in Delhi, which the ministry alleged was biased and
constituted incitement. The order accused MediaOne TV of siding with a “particular
community” in its coverage, and of improperly questioning the role of Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh. The order against Asianet News also accused the station of being
sympathetic to a “particular community,” and highlighted a report by P. R. Sunil, which
claimed that Delhi police merely watched while rioters burned mosques and attacked
bystanders, asking their religion. The order also said the network improperly alleged that the
central government did not act to control the riots.
https://cpj.org/2020/03/india-temporarily-bans-2-news-channels-over-covera/

25. Ahan Penkar, New Delhi

On 16 October, Delhi Police assaulted The Caravan’s staffer Ahan Penkar while he was
reporting in North Delhi. ACP Ajay Kumar kicked & slapped him inside the Model Town
station premises. Penkar has sustained injuries on his nose, his shoulder, his back and his
ankle. He repeatedly told the police that he was a journalist and prominently displayed his
press ID. The police forcibly took his phone from him and then deleted all the videos he had
recorded while reporting. Penkar was detained for nearly four hours.
https://caravanmagazine.in/noticeboard/reporters-without-borders-issues-statement-assault-
on-caravan-reporter