Accreditation-based access to public events can become a tool of censorship. Discuss with reference to freelance and independent journalists.

Under the Central Media Accreditation Guidelines (CMAG), 2022, accreditation exists to give access to "designated official sources of information" in Government [1]. Police now also use the same card to decide who may report from public protests, as reportedly happened at the October 2026 Delhi protests. When that happens, an access pass becomes a filter on speech.

How accreditation becomes censorship

• Purpose creep: a pass meant for official briefings now works as a licence to report from open streets. It limits Article 19(1)(a) through executive guidelines rather than a "law" under Article 19(2).
• Exclusion by design: freelancers need 15 years' experience and must have held a PIB card for 5 years. Part-time and retainer reporters do not count as working journalists, and accreditation covers only Delhi-NCR [1]. Most independent and digital reporters can never qualify.
• State as gatekeeper: the accreditation committee is chaired by the Principal DG, PIB, and up to 25 of its members are government nominees. A card is issued only after police verification and MHA concurrence [1]. The state decides who covers protests against the state.
• Vague withdrawal grounds: a card can be suspended for conduct "prejudicial to" public order or decency, or for defamation [1]. Wording this broad invites self-censorship.
• A punitive lever: the Press Council has itself proposed powers to suspend accreditation and withdraw government advertisements [4].
• No remedy: the PCI's mandate covers only newspapers and news agencies [2], and it hears complaints filed "by the Press" [3]. A lone freelancer has no statutory forum.

The counter-view

• Crowd control and security at sensitive sites do require some way to identify the media.
• On paper, accreditation gives no special status; it only recognises a person's identity as a professional [1].
• Unverified handles can spread misinformation during unrest.

Way forward

• Separate access to public spaces from accreditation. Basic identification should be enough to cover open events.
• Use a functional test (regular public-interest reporting), not employer or length of service.
• Set up a voluntary, peer-led recognition body on Bar Council/ICAI lines, with a right of appeal.
• Rely on after-the-fact accountability: PCI norms and censure under Section 14 [3]. Reforms should follow the wide stakeholder consultation the Government has promised [4].

Accreditation meets a real administrative need, but using it to gate public spaces gives the state a quiet veto over who may report. Recognition that is voluntary, function-based and peer-run, with accountability enforced after the fact, would allow both order and press freedom. That would honour Article 19(1)(a) and SDG 16.10 (public access to information and fundamental freedoms).