Justice Muralidhar highlighted that courts frequently issue “take down orders and gag orders by the State and by the courts, at all levels, have become commonplace. Ironically, fact checkers who call out fake news are accused of spreading harm.”
In a sharp criticism of how courts in India handle cases related to press freedom, retired Orissa High Court Chief Justice S Muralidhar has pointed out the judiciary’s inconsistent approach. Speaking at the BG Verghese Memorial Lecture at the India International Centre in Delhi, he shed light on various issues affecting journalists and press freedom in the country.
ALSO READ: New Criminal Laws Fail to Decolonize Legal System: Retd. Justice S Muralidhar
Courts’ Gag Orders and Unequal Relief for Journalists
Justice Muralidhar highlighted that courts frequently issue “take down orders and gag orders by the State and by the courts, at all levels, have become commonplace. Ironically, fact checkers who call out fake news are accused of spreading harm.”
He also pointed out the judiciary’s inconsistent response when journalists seek legal protection from arrests or criminal prosecution.
“When individual journalists, who have been subjected to the criminal law processes, have approached the Supreme Court, its response has been inconsistent. Some have received protection from arrest or bail, in good time. Some have had to wait for long. Some have not been given any relief at all.”
Justice Muralidhar noted that journalists are often threatened with criminal defamation cases filed by powerful politicians and corporate groups.
“These brave reporters are then scurrying between lawyers’ offices and courts seeking protection from arrest or bail or defending SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suits.”
He cited the example of a stand-up comic who faced contempt proceedings simply for sharing a satirical post.
ALSO READ: Retired Justice S Muralidhar: Larger Bench for SC to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
“What seemed to have precipitated the move was the gentleman re-tweeting a cartoon that suggested executive dominance over the judiciary.”
Criticizing the shrinking space for humor and satire in India, he questioned,
“The nation wants to know why, in the times now, in our republic, in India today, it is so hard to tolerate a healthy sense of humour, the ability to laugh at oneself or take a dig at the government?”
Justice Muralidhar recalled how in 2023, after the BBC aired a documentary scrutinizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots,
“the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting invoked emergency provisions of the Information Technology Rules to take it down. Income Tax surveys on BBC offices followed soon after. A party spokesperson dubbed it the ‘Bhrasht Bakwas Corporation.'”
He also mentioned how Tamil magazine Ananda Vikatan’s website was blocked over a political cartoon.
“The Madras High Court allowed the site to be restored, but only if the cartoon was removed.”
A BJP spokesperson justified such actions, stating,
“The freedom of the press does not extend to making fun of the country and its 140-crore people.”
The former judge recalled the internet shutdowns in Kashmir post-Article 370 abrogation in 2019.
He noted that when Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin petitioned the Supreme Court against the shutdown, the judgment upheld internet freedom but “left the core issues like the proportionality of shutdowns untouched, merely directing a review committee to examine restrictions weekly.”
He further criticized how the judiciary failed to take stronger action when media organizations followed up on the matter.
“No real immediate relief was given to the petitioners.”
Highlighting India’s global record, he noted,
“India continued to top the global charts on internet shutdowns, accounting for 84 out of 294 globally in 2024 alone.”
Justice Muralidhar underscored that a strong judiciary and a free press depend on each other.
“For an independent judiciary to remain effective, it needs a free press — and for the press to stay free, it needs an independent judiciary.”
However, he lamented that
“both are being tested today with the press often toeing the line of the executive and the courts granting relief depending on who the journalist was.”
Interestingly, he pointed out that while the judiciary often criticizes the press, judges themselves use media selectively.
“The Courts regularly use the media to carry their press releases on the judiciary’s achievements, the disposal of cases in Lok Adalats. Incoming and outgoing CJIs give interviews to a few select journalists. A few correspondents are favoured by some of the CJIs, and sometimes other judges, with exclusive scoops about the institution’s inner workings. Not infrequently a garrulous judge holds fort from the dais making gratuitous comments, wanting them to be relayed through the press.”
However, judges react strongly when criticized. “The judiciary would like to tell the press where it gets off.”
Justice Muralidhar recalled the 2018 press conference by Supreme Court judges who protested internal issues but noted the contrast in 2019 when then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi was accused of sexual harassment.
“The same judge presided over a special Saturday bench and requested the media not to report on it.”
He compared this to international standards, stating,
“The Daily Mirror once published upside-down pictures of judges with the caption ‘YOU FOOLS!’ and the Daily Mail called Supreme Court judges ‘Enemies of the People.’ No contempt action followed.”
However, Indian courts have reacted with “bristling indignation” to criticism, citing cases like Arundhati Roy’s jail time for criticizing the Narmada judgment and the Shillong Times editor’s Rs.2 lakh fine.
Even Wikipedia faced contempt proceedings for documenting ANI’s court case.
The Supreme Court later asked, “why the High Court was being so ‘touchy’.”
“The judiciary must learn to receive criticism.”
Justice Muralidhar drew attention to the safety of journalists, quoting the India Press Freedom Annual Report:
“Five journalists were killed in 2023, with 226 others targeted – nearly 150 of them by state actors.”
Journalists like Jyotiranjan Mohapatra (assaulted in Odisha), Nikhil Wagle (car attack in Pune), and Vinay Pandey (beheading threats over Gaza coverage) were cited as examples.
2024 World Press Freedom Index
Justice Muralidhar pointed to India’s low rank of 159 out of 180 in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, stating that the slight improvement from 161 in 2023 was only because “some other countries had done so badly, that their ranking had plummeted.“
However, the government dismissed the ranking, with Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw claiming that a rise in registered newspapers and TV channels proved press freedom.
He remarked that the Press Council of India had “moral authority, but was largely toothless.” He also highlighted that its website prominently featured the Prime Minister’s “Pariksha Pe Charcha.”
He criticized the failure of the News Broadcasters & Digital Association to enforce ethics, noting that channels ignored its rulings.
AI, Misinformation, and Political Propaganda
He questioned the role of AI in journalism, asking,
“Can you be sure that the journalist filing a report is not a machine?”
The real issue, he said, is that the system “incentivised misinformation and disincentivised accountability.” Political troll armies operate without consequences.
Finally, he warned that the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report had once again placed India among the most vulnerable countries to disinformation.
Justice Muralidhar’s speech is a wake-up call, urging the judiciary to uphold press freedom, protect journalists, and allow space for humor and criticism in a democracy.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
