[Discuss the phenomenon of using unrelated criminal FIRs to target journalists reporting on sensitive institutional matters. What safeguards does the judiciary provide?](/upsc-mains-answer/discuss-phenomenon-using-unrelated-criminal-firs-9df40d9)

Freedom of the press is not separately enumerated in the Constitution; it is read into Article 19(1)(a). Increasingly, that freedom is squeezed not by direct censorship but by the instrumentalisation of ordinary criminal process — FIRs on matters unconnected to the reportage, used to pressure journalists and expose their sources.

The phenomenon: how it operates

• Unrelated trigger, related target: in September 2026 a journalist reporting on alleged misappropriation of Ram Temple (Ayodhya) donations was booked in a road-rage FIR in Ghaziabad; police then sought his entire social-media footprint from the very date he began gathering evidence [1].
• Statutory piggybacking: grave provisions such as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sedition or UAPA are invoked, converting a minor dispute into a non-bailable threat [1].
• Source-unmasking through data demands: digital-footprint requests disproportionate to the alleged offence effectively defeat source confidentiality.
• Weak statutory shield: India has no reporter's-privilege law; the Press Council Act, 1978 creates only a statutory, quasi-judicial council with advisory, non-binding powers, and no protection against police investigation [2].
• Consequence — chilling effect: the process itself becomes the punishment, deterring accountability journalism on institutional finances and caste issues.

Judicial safeguards

• Article 32/226 writ jurisdiction: the Supreme Court in the above case granted interim protection from arrest, ordered the FIR be furnished, and extended protection to future FIRs by the same police [1].
• Quashing power: in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) the Court held that free speech "cannot be stifled by implicating citizens in criminal cases" [3].
• Proportionality and privacy: Puttaswamy (2017) requires state data demands to be necessary and proportionate — a check on sweeping footprint requests [3].

Judicial intervention, though vital, is case-by-case and reactive. A durable solution lies in codifying source protection, mandating judicial oversight of data demands on journalists, and empowering the Press Council — so that Article 19(1)(a) is protected by law, not merely rescued by litigation.