COMPARISON OF INDIAN AND AMERICAN FREEDOM OF PRESS

-Written By Khushi Sheikh

Introduction

World Press Freedom Day, observed annually on May 3rd, serves as a poignant reminder and rallying point for governments globally to respect and safeguard the autonomy of media and press institutions. It is a day that not only calls attention to the existing constraints imposed on the press but also provides an opportunity for media bodies to introspect on the progress made in advancing media freedom across various platforms.

Freedom of the press is a foundational concept that entails the right of newspapers, magazines, and similar entities to report news without undue control or censorship from the government. The press, functioning as a dynamic platform for a diverse array of voices, assumes multifaceted roles at the national, regional, and local levels. It serves as the public's vigilant watchdog, an active advocate, a guardian of truth, an educator, an entertainer, and a contemporary chronicler of societal events.

Crucially, press freedom stands as an indispensable pillar in any democratic society. Journalists, acting as the eyes and ears of the public, must possess the freedom to investigate, report, and disseminate information on matters of public interest without the fear of arrest or other forms of interference. This not only upholds the democratic values of transparency and accountability but also ensures an informed citizenry.

The principle of freedom of the press is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It explicitly states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." This articulation underscores that communication and expression through media are not merely privileges but fundamental rights that transcend geographical boundaries.

1. Significance of freedom of press

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a robust democracy, playing a pivotal role in ensuring the public receives information untainted by government interference, corruption, and propaganda. A liberated press facilitates the development of informed perspectives, fosters understanding of human rights protection, and exposes instances of corruption. Authoritarian regimes, exemplified by historical cases such as Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Castro, North Korea, China, and Russia, rigidly control the media to manipulate information and consolidate power. The nexus between governments, corporations, and press control underscores the influential role of information in shaping reality.

The essence of freedom of the press lies in its empowerment of journalists, publishers, and media entities to uncover truth, hold the powerful accountable, and disseminate enlightening information. This freedom finds expression through various facets, including:

1. Investigative Reporting:
- Investigative journalism, focusing on critical issues like political corruption, major corporate scandals, and human rights abuses, relies on freedom of the press. In environments lacking such protection, journalists face censorship and grave threats to their safety.

2. Whistleblower Protections:
- Whistleblowers, divulging information about an organization's illegal or unethical actions, often rely on press freedom. Protections, exemplified by the European Parliament's 2019 rules, enable whistleblowers to disclose information without fear of retaliation, with journalists safeguarding their identities.

3. Political Criticism:
- The media's role in reporting, analyzing, and critiquing politics is safeguarded by freedom of the press. This extends to newspapers, TV news, opinion pieces, political cartoons, and talk shows, providing the latitude to scrutinize politicians and legislation. In environments without press freedom, political criticism is frequently deemed illegal, exposing individuals to imprisonment or worse.

4. Fair Use:
- The legal doctrine of fair use, allowing limited use of copyrighted material without explicit permission, is a critical component of press freedom. While primarily applicable in the United States, analogous doctrines in other countries underscore the importance of media's right to use and disseminate information responsibly.

2. Freedom of press in India

Freedom of the press holds international recognition, acknowledged in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

While the Constitution of India in Article 19(1)(a) explicitly enshrines freedom of speech and expression, it does not expressly mention freedom of the press. Dr. Ambedkar, Chair of the Drafting Committee, clarified during the Constituent Assembly Debates that the press and individuals shared the same right of expression.

The architects of the Indian constitution viewed press freedom as an integral facet of the broader freedom of speech and expression outlined in Article 19(1)(a). This freedom encompasses the right to express convictions and opinions through various means, such as oral, written, printed, visual, or electronic media.

It is evident that the right to freedom of speech and expression encompasses the right to publish and circulate ideas through diverse channels. However, both freedom of the press and freedom of expression are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Supreme Court's perspective on press freedom is illustrated in key cases:

1. Ramesh Thapar vs. State of Madras (1950)[1]:
- The court asserted that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to circulate publications, and any ban infringing on this circulation restricts freedom of speech and expression.

2. Prabhu Dutt vs. UOI (1982)[2]:
- The court acknowledged the right to know news and information regarding government administration as part of press freedom. However, it highlighted that restrictions could be imposed in the interest of society and individuals providing information voluntarily.

3. Indian Express Newspaper vs. UOI (1985)[3]:
- The court ruled that the newspaper industry is not immune to general laws like taxation but emphasized that such impositions should be within reasonable limits to be valid.

4. Express Newspapers Ltd. vs. UOI (1958)[4]:
- The court declared that laws imposing pre-censorship, restricting circulation, or requiring government aid for survival violate Article 19(1)(a).

3. Freedom of press in U.S.A

The preeminent legislation governing broadcast media remains the Broadcasting Service Act of 1992, a comprehensive framework addressing content regulation and media ownership. Over time, this act has undergone various amendments to align with the evolving societal landscape.

In the United States, the cornerstone of press freedom lies in the First Amendment, a constitutional guarantee encompassing freedoms related to religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It explicitly prohibits Congress from endorsing any particular religion while also safeguarding individuals' freedom of religious practices. The First Amendment further secures freedom of expression by expressly restraining Congress from curtailing press rights or impeding individuals' freedom of speech. Additionally, it upholds citizens' rights to assemble peacefully and petition the government.

A landmark legal case, Gitlow v. New York (1925), underscored the sanctity of free speech and press as fundamental personal rights protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Within the realm of media content classification, the government plays a pivotal role. Should any material produced by newspapers or media be deemed sensitive, the government retains the authority to request the removal of specific content. This underscores the delicate balance between freedom of the press and governmental oversight.

Comparatively, the U.S. legal system provides a broader scope of freedom than its Indian counterpart. The right to freedom in India is delimited by well-defined restrictions outlined in Article 19(2). While the Indian Constitution lacks specific provisions exclusively safeguarding press rights, the judiciary has asserted that the press's right is implicitly embedded in the broader guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

In a significant legal precedent, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950)[5], the Supreme Court of India noted that the fundamental freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from the provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This reaffirms the global influence on constitutional principles that underpin the vital freedoms integral to democratic societies.

4. Recent trend of freedom of press in India.

Press freedom in India has transitioned from being "problematic" to a state deemed "very concerning," as reflected in the World Press Freedom Index. According to an analysis by Reporters Without Borders, an organization assessing journalistic conditions globally, India has descended by 11 ranks, currently standing at 161st out of 180 countries. This decline underscores the critical necessity for India to prioritize and enhance the liberty afforded to its press.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of media laws in India and the USA reveals distinct levels of freedom of speech and expression bestowed by their respective governments. It is evident that India, with its constitutional framework, provides a relatively robust foundation for freedom of speech and expression. However, a nuanced examination unveils the presence of legal provisions, such as laws of sedition and other reasonable restrictions, which pose constraints on citizens' ability to articulate themselves freely.

In contrast, the United States stands out for its constitutional grant of unrestricted rights of free speech to its citizens. The absence of comparable legal constraints in the U.S. underscores a more expansive freedom for its citizens to express their thoughts and opinions without undue limitations.

In a nation like India, characterized by its socialist, democratic, and secular ethos, the right to speech and expression is a fundamental entitlement safeguarded by the constitution. Despite this constitutional protection, prudent restrictions have been instituted to prevent the infringement of citizens' fundamental rights.

This comparative exploration underscores the delicate balance that nations strike between fostering free expression and instituting necessary safeguards to maintain societal harmony and protect against potential abuses of these fundamental rights.