FREEDOM OF PRESS (SHARING IDEAS OF CHETHAN KUMAR)

A PROFESSIONAL TAKE ON THE FREEDOM OF PRESS

(QUOTING CHETHAN KUMAR ON F.O.P)

(CHETHAN KUMAR IS A DEFENSE JOURNALIST WORKING WITH THE DECCAN HERALD, BANGALORE, AND HE HAS A GOOD EXPERIENCE AS A REPORTER.)
Freedom of press is a concept or philosophy that guarantees freedom of speech and expression through various media- both electronic and otherwise publishing. This implies to keeping the media free from the reach of an overbearing or an overreaching government. There is no exclusive clause for the “freedom of press” in the Indian constitution but the issue is covered under Article 19(i)(a) of the constitution that deals with the freedom of speech and expression. It says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

From the 1799 Press Regulations by Lord Wellesley to modern day cases like the case between Menka Gandhi and the Union of India, Freedom of Press has been maintained with a lot of fluidity and flexibility to suit both, the governments and the public at large. A colonial experience had made Indians understand the value of a free Press. From the time when the constitution of India provided freedom of speech and expression, till date, there have been several cases that have made the government cover the loopholes in the Law and provide increased access to the media. Thus, the guardians of the freedom of press in a democracy like India are both, the constitution and the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chethan Kumar, a staff reporter at Deccan Herald, Bangalore has been with Deccan Herald for over three years and his professional interest lies in Defense Journalism. He covers everything that happens in the Defense sector, from new policies to new planes and missiles. Having spent years as a reporter, Chethan has had a very good experience with Freedom of Press in India and has a very positive outlook towards the extent of liberty accredited to journalists in India.

He feels that Freedom of Press is an extension of the right of expression provided in the Indian constitution and an essential part of the democracy; essential because it helps in putting in place “public” checks and balances. Media acts as the fourth pillar, or the fourth estate of a democratic setup and certain provisions by the state helps it to act as a connection between the government and the public (in any form of government), to keep check on the government and also act as a vehicle of information and opinions for both, the government and the public.

In India, the scene has been very interesting. Media has made news and has been in news for all reasons. In several cases, the Press has been the pioneer of change in the society and government, for example the role of media in bringing about the resignation of Haryana minister Vinod Sharma. Especially after the privatization of the media sector, there has been a lot of improvement in media setup in the country. The government has had to have put up with a lot more scrutiny and criticism and the public is openly reaching out to the government for answers through media. Chethan Kumar says that unlike some of its immediate neighbors, India has seen increasing respect to the freedom of Press guaranteed by the constitution and in some sense, has protected the provisions made for the Press. There have been cases filed against various media organizations, but it has always brought a positive change in the scenario without much ado.

To quote Chethan Kumar, “The freedom we are talking about, as I have noted, is an extension of a right.  So more than it empowering the press, which it anyway probably does, it supplements it.” The provisions provided for the Press for its smooth functioning supplement or add on to the effective working of the press in a democracy. Today media or the Press has become a brand in itself that can be worn with pride, and media persons definitely enjoy numerous rights, benefits, access, influences and similar such causes outside the constitution that help them get hold of valuable and worthwhile information with better ease. The freedom of Press in fact helps the Press penetrate to the other side of the otherwise semi-permeable or non-permeable sections of information.

But unfortunately, Freedom of Press does not sustain the Press above political pressures. Chethan emphasizes on the effect of politics in the functioning of the Press and says that everything is politics. In democracy the politics of saving “freedom of press” to suit their (the political parties) interests and do otherwise in another context. And similarly, in other forms of governance, there are other political pressures.” Positive publicity is the need of the hour, with media becoming so vibrant, dynamic and uncontrollable, and this has to be obtained by hook or by crook. It is common knowledge about some media organizations having a slant towards a particular political party. The give-and-take relationship that media has to maintain for its survival (advertisements), and for the very reason of its physical survival (Tehelka office sabotage after it brought out bribery in Best Bakery Fire case), the organizations have to bow down to political pressures.

Excess of political pressure or excess of freedom, both could be hazardous for a democracy and hence, the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(ii) of the Indian constitution. Apart from these, there are a lot of limitations put on the people on top, the very people who frame and execute these laws. No one is above the law, as Mr. Chethan Kumar says; some of the major limitations come from within newspaper/television offices. Each organization also has its own work policies and they become laws for the media persons working as a part of that organization. This in itself is a restriction, a limitation on the freedom of speech and expression of an individual. Not only in India, nowhere in the world there exists a concept of absolute freedom of press. Indeed, absolute freedom of press is not a pragmatic ideology. There have been umpteen cases where the intervention of media has caused irreparable damage. For example, the 2008 Mumbai attacks. News channels were giving an enthusiastic chronological coverage to the terror events and were also broadcasting movements and activities of the police and the defense, conveniently forgetting that the terrorists could have easy access to all these information and that could help them. For reasons like these, there has to be a regulatory parameter that draws a line where the freedom of press ends or where the responsibility towards the country at large is more important than the responsibility as a media person.

But, we cannot completely ignore that in some cases unreasonable restrictions are imposed on the Press. So what is the solution? Indian Express filed a case, where the class legislation of Working Journalists Act was under attack, but the court ruled in favor of the government and upheld the validity of the Act. According to Chethan Kumar, “An exclusive clause of freedom of Press is not an answer to unreasonable limitations for what we have is already quite liberal, although less in comparison to certain western countries.” Countries like UK and US have a very libertarian Press. Chethan further says, “just like our bank laws that saved us during the recent recession, Press laws, restrictions or limitations will prevent the media from completely losing out to market pressures, which is a trend already being witnessed.” He also says that what we have in place as freedom of Press in India is apt and adequate. There is no need to look out for amendments as of now if only we exercise what we already have in place in an effective, efficient and honest way.

Another important thing to be considered is, do the allowances made for the Press in India help the journalists to pursue their profession without hindrances and do the media people enjoy the available freedom of press? There is a very vague distinction between what is ethical and what is necessary. Though both the categories are not mutually exclusive, the distinction remains. Then again, these criteria are not rigid. They keep on shape-shifting. What is ethical today might seem blasphemous tomorrow. Necessities too change over time and context. Chethan says that sometimes journalists do not enjoy the freedom of Press guaranteed to them, but it is a rare occurrence. And the reason why we do not have freedom in such cases is a result of varied and complex reasons that cannot be pin-pointed to a particular reason, time or context.

In India a journalist has freedom to access information of public interest, can criticize, assert and comment but his or her freedom extends only as much as that of any ordinary citizen. There are no exclusive provisions for journalists. The Press acts as a watchdog in the democracy within the limitations set by freedom of Press and reasonable restrictions. Though by international standards, the degree of freedom enjoyed by the Press in India is poor, there are plus points to that too, for it restrains media from getting out of hand and creating public unrest. In spite of restrictions and political pressure, journalists in India find the considerations given by the constitution reasonable and adequate rather than unnecessary. If only the existing clauses are exercised well, there can be smooth symbiotic functioning of the government and media.