At the IPI India Award 2025 event, BV Nagarathna said media freedom suffers more from economic and regulatory pressures than censorship. She warned, “A press outlet may be legally free… yet economically constrained,” highlighting threats to independent journalism.
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna stated that the media cannot effectively fulfill its role if constrained by fear or influence. She pointed out that the most significant threats to press freedom do not stem from direct censorship but rather from regulations, ownership rules, licensing laws, and economic policies.
Speaking at the presentation ceremony for the IPI India Award for Excellence in Journalism 2025, Justice Nagarathna, who is set to become the first female Chief Justice of India in September 2027, noted that the recent trend of attempting to control the press has both economic and political motivations.
She remarked,
“A press outlet may be legally free to criticize the government, yet economically constrained in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable,”
As the only woman currently serving on the apex court, Justice Nagarathna emphasized that press freedom in India holds a unique constitutional status, arising from the interplay of Article 19, which ensures freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19, which safeguards the right to practice any profession or conduct any trade, occupation, or business.
As the chief guest, she highlighted that press freedom in India is supported from two distinct constitutional perspectives. Former Supreme Court judge MB Lokur and Vijay Joshi, Editor in-Chief of Press Trust of India, also addressed the audience.
The IPI-India Award was conferred upon Vaishnavi Rathore of Scroll.in for her outstanding reporting on the Great Nicobar Island development project, which includes a cash prize of Rs 2 lakh, a trophy, and a citation.
In her address, Justice Nagarathna expressed that the gravest threats to press freedom are likely to arise not from direct censorship under Article 19 but from regulations justified under Article 19.
She stated,
“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,”
ALSO READ: Three-language Formula and Linguistic Secularism in the National Education Policy: Debate
The judge further explained that the constitutional challenge lies in safeguarding Articles 19 and 19 from degradation through regulation, emphasizing that when speech and trade intersect, speech should take precedence.
She underscored,
“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, and political parties are competing fiercely for visibility through the press,”
Justice Nagarathna noted that while the law may not silence the press, it can shape the conditions under which speech is created, making certain narratives safer and others riskier, well before editorial decisions are debated.
She pointed out,
“A free press is not created by decree; it evolves through the interactions of readers, writers, and editors. Efforts to perfect it through centralized control, whether political or bureaucratic, undermine the spontaneity that gives it vitality. The recent trend of attempts to capture the press has both economic foundations and political implications,”
She argued that even if media outlets appear editorially independent, their ability to engage in adversarial journalism is restricted by the interests of owners whose economic or political connections may be jeopardized by such reporting.
She added.
“This raises a normative question: if press freedom relies on economic viability within competitive markets, can it truly be free? Will there be a genuinely free and balanced press? The press may be free from state control yet dependent on corporate power, which may itself rely on state patronage,”
Emphasizing that challenges to press freedom must be addressed promptly, Justice Nagarathna stated,
“Therefore, any restraint on free and frank reporting and the rise of what I characterize as ‘selective journalism’ must be curtailed.”
She stressed that press freedom is not merely a constitutional right but an ethical practice, central to which are the ideals of “objectivity and impartiality.” and also highlighted that civil society must acknowledge that independent reporting is a public good worth supporting while recognizing that good journalism cannot rely solely on goodwill.
She concluded,
“When someone subscribes, they’re expressing that this kind of reporting is worth backing. A press supported by its readers is better positioned to serve the public interest and withstand political pressures,”
Justice Lokur praised the media’s role in bringing environmental issues to light, stating that such reporting raises awareness among citizens who can serve as pressure groups to compel authorities to protect the environment.
In his welcoming remarks, Joshi stated that there are moments when institutions speak loudly and times when they stand firm.
He said,
“Journalism at its best accomplishes both. It asks difficult questions, not to obstruct progress, but to refine it,”
Joshi further noted that in a democracy as vibrant as India’s, development is often described in superlatives biggest, fastest, or largest but journalism uses a different vocabulary.
He questioned.
“It asks, at what cost is development, and for whom is this development? And who decides what to give?”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
