Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna yesterday said media cannot perform its role under constraint, fear or influence and the most serious threats to press freedom arise not from direct censorship but from regulations, ownership rules, licensing laws and economic policies.

According to a PTI report yesterday, speaking at the presentation function of the IPI India Award for Excellence in Journalism 2025, Justice Nagarathna, who is set to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027, said the recent trend of attempts to capture the press not only has economic underpinnings but also political overtones.

“A press outlet may be legally free to criticize the government, yet economically constrained in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable,” she said.

The lone woman judge in the apex court at present said that freedom of the press in India occupies an interesting constitutional status and the right emerges from the interaction between Article 19 — the freedom of speech and expression and Article 19 — the freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

Justice Nagarathna, who was the chief guest, highlighted that press freedom in India is simultaneously protected from two different constitutional angles. Former apex court judge MB Lokur and Vijay Joshi, Editor in-Chief of Press Trust of India, also spoke at the event.

The IPI-India Award was presented to Vaishnavi Rathore of Scroll.in for her reporting on the Great Nicobar Island development project. The award comprises a cash prize of  Rs. 2 lakh, a trophy and a citation.

In her speech, Justice Nagarathna said the most serious threats to press freedom are likely to arise not from direct censorship under Article 19, but from regulations justified under Article 19.

“Ownership rules, licensing laws, advertising policies, taxation and increasingly antitrust law may all be defended as economic regulation, even when they have profound effects on editorial independence. This allows the State to influence the press indirectly while maintaining formal compliance with Article 19,” she said.

The judge further said that the constitutional challenge lies in preventing regulation from hollowing out Articles 19 and 19 and a principled approach, thus, requires recognizing that when speech and trade intersect, speech must prevail.

“A press outlet may be legally free to criticize the government, yet economically constrained in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable. Editors internalize the risk that critical coverage may lead to, for example, the withdrawal of lucrative advertising contracts especially in present times when Governments, PSUs, political parties are vying with each other in being brazen with visual publicity through the press,” she underscored.

Justice Nagarathna flagged that the law may not silence the press; but it may shape the conditions under which speech is created and certain narratives become safer, others riskier, long before publication decisions are consciously debated in editorial boards.

“A free press is not created by decree; it evolves through interaction between readers, writers, and editors. Attempts to perfect it through centralized control, whether political or bureaucratic, undermines the very spontaneity that gives it vitality. The recent trend of attempts to capture the press not only has economic underpinnings but also political overtones,” she highlighted.

Justice Nagarathna said media outlets may remain editorially independent on paper, yet their capacity to pursue adversarial journalism is limited by the interests of owners whose economic or political ties may be threatened by such reporting.

“This raises a normative question: if press freedom depends on economic viability within competitive markets, can it truly be free? Will there then be a free and balanced press? The press may be free from the State yet dependent on corporate power which may in turn be dependent on State patronage,” she said.

Emphasising that a challenge to free press cannot be countenanced but must be effectively tackled at the earliest, Justice Nagarathna said, “Therefore, a restraint on free and frank reporting and an emergence of what I call ‘selective journalism’, for want of a better expression, must be curbed.”

She highlighted that press freedom is not only a constitutional right but also an ethical practice and central to the moral authority of journalists are the twin ideals of “objectivity and impartiality”.

Justice Nagarathna added that civil society must recognise that independent reporting is a public good worth paying for and on the other hand, good journalism doesn’t run on goodwill alone.

“When someone takes a subscription, they’re really saying, this kind of reporting is worth backing. A press sustained by its readers is always better placed to serve the public interest and fend off political pressures,” she said.

Justice Lokur praised the role of the media in highlighting environmental related issues and said such stories generate awareness among people who can perhaps be a pressure group that may ultimately compel authorities to preserve and protect our environment.

Joshi, in his welcome speech, said there are moments when the institutions speak loudly, and there are moments when they strictly stand firm.

“Journalism at its best does both. It asks difficult questions, not to obstruct progress, but to refine it,” he said.

(Image courtesy Barandbench.com)