The need for a national media council

1. At a Glance

• Core idea: set up a statutory national media council that would recognise all working journalists, freelance journalists, camerapersons and technicians. It is modelled on the Bar Council of India (lawyers) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (chartered accountants) [1].
• Problem it answers: who counts as a journalist, and who gets to decide? At present, access to news events depends in practice on PIB or State DIP accreditation. This leaves freelancers, independent journalists and digital creators without cover [1].
• Existing regulator: the Press Council of India (PCI), set up under the Press Council Act, 1978. Its job is to preserve press freedom and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies. It does not license or recognise individual journalists [2].
• UPSC relevance: the topic links to GS-II (statutory and regulatory bodies, rights, media and governance) and GS-IV (media ethics, self-regulation versus state regulation).

2. Why in the News

• 10 October 2026: protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and led by Opposition parties demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. During these protests, riot police removed freelancers and independent journalists from the site and sent them to detention centres [1].
• Only PIB- or DIP-accredited journalists were allowed to cover the 10 October protests [1].
• The CJP had held an earlier round of protests in July 2026 over the NEET paper leak. In both rounds, freelancers, independent journalists and content creators covered the events alongside reporters from registered media houses [1].
• A PIL seeks protection of the freedom of expression of freelance journalists. It is being heard by a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi [1].
• Op-ed trigger: Prof. Rakesh Goswami of IIMC, New Delhi argued in The Hindu (26 October 2026, p. 9) for a national media council [1].
• Note: only a truncated, paywalled excerpt of the article was available, so the Bench's observations or orders are not covered here.

3. Background & Evolution

• Press Council Act, 1978: enacted to set up a press council that would preserve press freedom and maintain and improve standards of newspapers and news agencies [2].
• Administrative ministry: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting [2].
• Proposals to strengthen the PCI: the Council has proposed amendments that would let it act against violators. The proposed powers include:
• withdrawal of Government advertisements;
• suspension of a newspaper's registration;

• suspension of an editor's or journalist's accreditation [3].

• Government position: any amendment must be drafted carefully after wide consultation with stakeholders. These remain proposals, not law [3].

• Complaints role: the PCI hears complaints filed "by the Press" about curtailment of press freedom and physical assault or attacks on journalists. It can also take suo motu cognizance of pressing press-freedom issues [4].
• The gap: accreditation is still an executive function of PIB and State DIPs. No statutory body recognises journalists as a profession [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Existing statutory regulator	Press Council of India [2]
Enabling law	Press Council Act, 1978 [2]
Nodal ministry	Ministry of Information & Broadcasting [2]
Legal status	Body corporate [2]
Composition	Chairman + 28 members [2]
Working-journalist members	13, of whom 6 are editors [2]
Scope	Print: newspapers and news agencies [2]
Complaint jurisdiction	Complaints by the Press (curtailment of freedom, assault on journalists) plus suo motu powers [4]
Proposed new powers (not enacted)	Withdraw government ads; suspend newspaper registration; suspend editor/journalist accreditation [3]
Central accreditation	Press Information Bureau (PIB) [1]
State accreditation	Directorate of Information and Publicity (DIP) [1]
Proposed body	National Media Council, a professional-recognition model like BCI / ICAI [1]
Proposed coverage	Working journalists, freelancers, camerapersons, technicians [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The PIL frames the issue as protecting the right to freedom of expression of freelance journalists [1].
• The PCI Act's mandate covers newspapers and news agencies, not individual digital or freelance journalists. This is a statutory gap [2][1].
• Gatekeeping through accreditation is done by executive bodies (PIB/DIP), not under a statutory test of who qualifies as a journalist [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Who decides who is a journalist? A professional council would move that decision from government (PIB/DIP) to a peer-recognition body, as BCI and ICAI do for their professions [1].
• Risk: licensing journalists could turn into a tool for exclusion or control, which is the reverse of the PCI's freedom-preserving mandate [2]. This is analysis, not a sourced fact.
• The PCI's own push for punitive powers (ads, registration, accreditation) shows the tension between enforcing standards and keeping the press independent [3].

Social

• Freelancers, independent journalists and content creators have no institutional protection. They were the ones removed and detained on 10 October 2026 [1].
• Camerapersons and technicians are explicitly named as groups the proposed council would cover [1].

Administrative

• Policing on the ground: at crowded protest sites, accreditation becomes the police's working filter for who stays [1].
• Federal split: accreditation is divided between the Centre (PIB) and the States (DIP), so the rules differ from place to place [1].
• Process: the Government says any amendment to the PCI Act needs wide stakeholder consultation, so it is likely to be slow [3].

Technological

• Digital creators covering live events blur the line between journalist and citizen, which the PCI's print-era framework does not address [1][2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• November 2025: a PIB document set out the PCI's complaint-handling role, including assaults on journalists and suo motu cognizance [4].
• July 2026: first round of CJP protests, over the NEET paper leak [1].
• 10 October 2026: second round of CJP protests, demanding the CEC's removal. Freelancers were detained and only PIB/DIP-accredited journalists were allowed in [1].
• October 2026: a PIL on freelance journalists' freedom of expression is heard by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi [1].
• 26 October 2026: IIMC professor Rakesh Goswami's op-ed in The Hindu proposes a national media council [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Press Council of India is constituted under the Press Council Act, 1978 [2].
• The PCI is a body corporate [2].
• PCI composition: a Chairman and 28 other members [2].
• 13 PCI members are nominated from among working journalists [2].
• Of those 13 working journalists, 6 are editors [2].
• The PCI's mandate covers newspapers and news agencies [2].
• Nodal ministry for the Press Council Act: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting [2].
• The PCI can take suo motu cognizance of press-freedom issues [4].
• The PCI hears complaints by the Press about physical assault on journalists [4].
• Proposed (not enacted) PCI power: suspension of an editor's or journalist's accreditation [3].
• Central journalist accreditation is issued by the Press Information Bureau [1].
• State-level accreditation is issued by the Directorate of Information and Publicity [1].
• The proposed media council is modelled on the Bar Council of India and ICAI [1].

8. Why a Government Pass Is a Poor Test of Who Is a Journalist

• The pass was made for one job and is now used for another
• PIB and State DIP accreditation is an executive pass (a permit given by a government office, not set out in any Act) [1].
• On 10 October 2026 the police used it to decide who could stay at a protest site. Freelancers without it were removed and detained [1].

• So a reporter's right to watch a public event in an open place now depends on holding a government permit.

• The people who issue the pass are the people being reported on

• PIB and DIP are part of the Union and State governments [1].
• The 10 October protests were against a constitutional authority, the Chief Election Commissioner [1].

• When the government is a party to the story, letting a government office decide who may cover it is a conflict of interest.

• Accreditation is already treated as a punishment tool

• The PCI itself wants the power to suspend a journalist's accreditation [3].
• This shows that in India accreditation is seen as a privilege that can be taken away, not as proof of being a professional.

• A freelancer who never had a pass loses nothing when one is suspended, and gains nothing from the system either.

• There is no fixed rule and no appeal

• No Act says who qualifies as a journalist. Accreditation rules are set by executive bodies, not by Parliament [1].
• A journalist turned away at a protest site has no statutory body to complain to about being refused recognition.

9. The PCI Can Punish a Journalist but Cannot Protect One

• The Act already reaches individual journalists, but only to punish them
• Section 14 of the Press Council Act lets the PCI warn, admonish or censure (formally criticise) a newspaper, an editor or a working journalist [2].
• Section 13 tells the PCI to build a code of conduct for journalists, not just for newspapers [2].

• So the law already watches journalists' conduct. What it does not do is give them a recognised status they can rely on.

• Against the state, the PCI can only comment

• Under Section 15, the PCI may make observations (formal remarks) on the conduct of any authority, including the government [2].
• Remarks are not orders. The PCI cannot tell the police to let a freelancer back into a protest site, or to release one from detention.

• It hears complaints about assaults on journalists, but these must come "by the Press" [4], which a lone freelancer with no outlet behind them may not count as.

• Its reach ends where today's reporting begins

• The Act covers newspapers and news agencies only [2].
• A freelancer who files video to YouTube, or a cameraperson working for a TV channel, sits outside that scope.

• The groups detained on 10 October, freelancers and digital creators [1], are the groups the PCI's mandate does not cover.

• Courts cannot always step in either

• Section 14 says the PCI cannot inquire into any matter already pending before a court [2].
• With a PIL on freelancers already before the Supreme Court [1], the PCI may stay out of the very dispute it was set up to deal with.

10. The Strongest Case Against a Media Council

• The objection: free speech belongs to every citizen, not to a licensed group
• Lawyers and chartered accountants need a licence because the law reserves their work for qualified people. Only an enrolled advocate can argue a case in court.
• Reporting is different. It is an exercise of Article 19(1)(a) (the right to freedom of speech and expression), which every citizen holds. The Constitution gives the press no separate or higher right.

• If a council starts deciding who is a "real" journalist, the next step can be that unrecognised people may not report. That would make the problem worse, not better.

• The objection has evidence behind it

• India's own regulators have asked for powers to cut government ads, suspend registration and suspend accreditation [3].

• A new council with a register of journalists could become one more lever of that kind, which goes against the PCI's duty to protect press freedom [2].

• What the objection gets right

• Any rule that makes recognition necessary for reporting would be open to challenge under Article 19. The BCI model cannot be copied as it is.

• Who sits on the council matters more than whether it exists. A council packed with nominees from the I&B ministry would just move PIB's gatekeeping to a new office.

• Where the objection falls short

• The choice today is not between "licence" and "freedom". It is between recognition by a peer body and recognition by a government office [1].
• Freelancers already face a gate: the police filter at the protest site. A council that grants voluntary recognition would give them a way past that gate. It would not create a new one.
• So the real question is how the council is designed, not whether there should be one.

11. What a Media Council Would Have to Get Right

• Parliament: make recognition optional, not a condition for reporting
• The law should say plainly that anyone may report, with or without recognition.
• Recognition should give access to events and entitle the journalist to protection. It should never be a permit to publish.

• This answers the Article 19 objection head on.

• Keep the government out of choosing who sits on the council

• The PCI Act already has a working model. Its Chairman is chosen by a committee of the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the Lok Sabha Speaker and a person elected by the Council's members [2].

• Thirteen PCI members come from working journalists [2]. A media council should go further and let freelancers, camerapersons and technicians [1] elect their own members.

• Give it powers against the state, not only against the press

• The PCI can only make remarks about government conduct [2].

• A new council needs the power to require an answer from police or administrators when a recognised journalist is detained or blocked. Without that, freelancers gain a certificate but no protection.

• Write a clear test, with a right to appeal

• Today no Act sets out who counts as a journalist [1].
• The law should judge people by the work they do (regular reporting for the public), not by who employs them. That brings in freelancers and digital creators.

• Anyone refused recognition should be able to appeal to an independent forum, which PIB/DIP accreditation does not offer.

• Do not just add punishment powers to the old PCI

• The PCI's pending proposals [3] would let it cut ads and suspend accreditation. That makes the regulator stronger against the press, not stronger for it.
• Wide stakeholder consultation, which the Government has promised [3], should cover both reforms together: how to protect journalists as well as how to discipline them.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: PCI has a Chairman and 28 members, of whom 13 are working journalists (6 editors). Journalists have a voice, but freelancers and digital reporters have no reserved seat [2]
• Report/Committee: PCI's proposed amendments to withdraw government ads and suspend registration or accreditation; the Government says these need wide stakeholder consultation [3]
• Law/Case: Press Council Act, 1978: Section 13 (code of conduct for journalists), Section 14 (censure; no inquiry into matters pending in court), Section 15 (observations on government conduct) [2]; Article 19(1)(a); the pending Supreme Court PIL on freelance journalists before CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi [1]
• Comparison: Bar Council of India and ICAI recognise their members through a peer body, not a government office. Unlike law, though, reporting is a right of every citizen, so the model must be voluntary [1]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies; fundamental rights (free speech); role of civil society and the media.
• GS-IV: media ethics; self-regulation versus external regulation; accountability.
• GS-III (secondary): challenges to internal security from communication networks and media.
• Possible question stems: 1. Who is a journalist in the digital age? Examine the case for a statutory National Media Council in India on the lines of professional councils such as the Bar Council of India. (250 words) 2. The Press Council of India has been called a 'toothless tiger.' Critically evaluate its mandate and suggest reforms for a converged media ecosystem. 3. Accreditation-based access to public events can become a tool of censorship. Discuss with reference to freelance and independent journalists.

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Press Council Act, 1978: the current statutory regulator and its limits.
• Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2): free speech and the reasonable-restriction framework for the press.
• Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023: the registration regime for print periodicals.
• IT Rules, 2021 (digital media ethics code): how digital news publishers are regulated.
• Broadcasting regulation (NBDSA, TRAI): the self-regulatory model for TV, as distinct from print.
• Professional councils (BCI, ICAI, NMC): the template for a profession-recognition body.
• Election Commission: CEC appointment and removal: the issue behind the October 2026 protests.
• PIB accreditation guidelines: the current executive gatekeeping mechanism.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Press Council of India (Polity): The existing statutory press regulator; the note contrasts its print-only mandate and limited powers with the proposed council.
• Freedom of speech and expression (Polity): The PIL and the debate rest on press freedom and its reasonable restrictions under Article 19.
• Bar Council of India (Polity): The proposed media council is modelled on it, as a professional body that enrols and regulates practitioners.
• Statutory body (Polity): The proposed council and the PCI are both statutory bodies, whose powers depend on an Act of Parliament.
• Public interest litigation (Polity): A PIL on freelance journalists' freedom of expression is being heard by the Supreme Court.
• Censorship (Polity): Accreditation-based access to events can work as a filter on who reports, which raises censorship concerns.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• PCI is statutory, not constitutional. It was created by the Press Council Act, 1978, not by any Article [2].
• PCI does not regulate TV or digital media. Its mandate is newspapers and news agencies [2].
• Composition is often misremembered. It is Chairman + 28 members, with 13 working journalists (6 of them editors) [2].
• Proposals are not powers. Withdrawing ads and suspending accreditation are PCI-proposed amendments, not current law [3].
• Accreditation is not done by the PCI. It is done by PIB (Centre) and DIP (States) [1].
• The media council is only a proposal. No such body exists yet; the idea comes from an op-ed [1].