Press Freedom In India: A Declining Trajectory

Posted on 24th August, 2025 (GMT 07:35 hrs)

ABSTRACT

This paper traces the sharp decline of press freedom in India under the Modi government (2014–2025), situating it within a broader democratic backslide marked by surveillance, censorship, impunity, and institutional capture. Drawing on global indices such as RSF’s World Press Freedom Index, CPJ’s Impunity Index, and the Atlas of Impunity, it highlights how violence against journalists, draconian laws like the UAPA, ownership consolidation, internet shutdowns, and defamation SLAPPs have reshaped India’s media landscape. Through emblematic cases—from the murders of Gauri Lankesh and Shujaat Bukhari to the arrests of Aasif Sultan, Fahad Shah, and Prabir Purkayastha, as well as the harassment of comedians like Munawar Faruqui—the study shows how dissent is criminalized. The paper also examines digital censorship, such as the blocking of BBC’s Modi documentary, Poonam Agarwal’s YouTube ban, and Ajit Anjum’s harassment, alongside the NewsClick raids and Elon Musk’s lawsuit against India’s censorship regime. It argues that the erosion of press freedom mirrors larger systemic crises of impunity, corporate-state nexus, and authoritarian populism, threatening not only media independence but India’s democratic ethos itself.

India, the world’s so-called “largest democracy”, has historically prided itself on a vibrant press. Yet, over the past decade, press freedom has deteriorated sharply, reflecting a dangerous trajectory of surveillance, censorship, suppression of dissent or independent voices, harassment, and impunity. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership since 2014, India’s media landscape has been reshaped through legal restrictions, ownership consolidation, propaganda-driven outlets, and intimidation of journalists, comedians, and independent media platforms.

Global Indices: A Mirror of Decline

World Press Freedom Index (RSF)

The 2024 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranks India 159th out of 180 countries, with a score of 31.28. This represents a marginal “improvement” from 161st in 2023, but the score itself worsened—indicating that the rank shift is due to global declines in press freedom, not domestic gains. In 2016, India stood at 133rd, sliding to 142nd in 2020 and consistently deteriorating since.

Key Components of India’s decline:

• Safety: At least 13 journalists have been murdered since 2014, five of them in 2024 alone.
• Legal restrictions: Laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and IT Rules 2021 are routinely weaponized against journalists. Over 25,000 online takedowns were enforced in 2023, and 200+ legal cases were filed against journalists.
• Ownership concentration: Around 70% of media outlets are linked to BJP-affiliated conglomerates, notably Reliance (Ambani) and Adani, raising grave concerns about independence.

Impunity Index (The Committee to Protect Journalists)

The Committee to Protect Journalists’ Global Impunity Index (CPJ-GII) exposes India’s failure to hold perpetrators accountable for crimes against journalists. India ranked 13th in 2024, with 17 unsolved murders (2014–2024). It has appeared on the list since its inception in 2008. No conviction has been upheld in a journalist murder case directly tied to their work since 1992.

Notable murders include:

• Gauri Lankesh (2017) – outspoken critic of Hindutva politics.
• Shujaat Bukhari (2018) – editor of Rising Kashmir.
• Santanu Bhowmik (2017) and Sudip Datta Bhaumik (2017) – killed in Tripura.
• Navin Nishchal (2018) – run over in Bihar.

The persistence of impunity has created a climate of fear, silence, and self-censorship.

Atlas of Impunity (Eurasia Group and Chicago Council)

The broader Atlas of Impunity (2023) situates India within a multidimensional framework of unaccountability, ranking it poorly on human rights, conflict, and environmental degradation. India performs relatively better on governance (how is it possible in an Orwellian state?) but fares poorly on:

• Human rights abuses: Custodial violence, gender-based discrimination, and minority persecution.
• Environmental impunity: Ranked 20th out of 163 on environmental degradation, as India remains among the largest greenhouse gas emitters.

This context highlights how press freedom erosion is tied to larger systemic patterns of institutional capture and impunity.

Arrests, Imprisonments, and Harassment of Journalists and Comedians

From 2014 to 2025, India has witnessed an unprecedented crackdown on journalists and even stand-up comedians, often under colonial-era sedition laws or draconian anti-terror statutes like the UAPA.

Journalists Imprisoned

• Aasif Sultan (2018): Jailed under UAPA, later detained under the Public Safety Act.
• Fahad Shah (2022): Founder of The Kashmir Walla, arrested multiple times, held under PSA.
• Kishorechandra Wangkhem (2018–20): Detained repeatedly in Manipur under the NSA.
• Siddique Kappan (2020–23): Arrested en route to Hathras, accused under UAPA, released after over two years.
• Mohammed Zubair (2022): Alt News co-founder, jailed over a tweet before Supreme Court intervention.
• Prabir Purkayastha (2023): NewsClick editor, arrested in sweeping UAPA raids, released in 2024 after SC intervention.
• Ajit Anjum (2024–25): Senior journalist and YouTuber, repeatedly targeted by online harassment and legal intimidation for exposing electoral malpractices and corporate-political links. His case shows how digital-first independent journalism has become a new frontier of state hostility.

Comedians Targeted

• Munawar Faruqui (2021): Arrested in Indore, jailed a month despite lack of evidence.
• Agrima Joshua (2020): Faced FIRs for old YouTube jokes on Shivaji.
• Kunal Kamra (2020, 2025): Subject to contempt proceedings over tweets and again for his songs on the BJP-instigated Maharashtra Government.
• Vir Das (2021): Faced FIRs after his “Two Indias” monologue.

The pattern reveals state-backed harassment of dissent, whether in journalism or satire.

Raids, Seizures, and Censorship

Government agencies have repeatedly raided independent newsrooms and seized equipment:

• Dainik Bhaskar (2021): IT raids widely condemned as retaliation for critical COVID coverage.
• Newslaundry (2021): IT “survey” led to seizure of devices.
• BBC India (2023): Tax raids followed its release of India: The Modi Question.
• NewsClick (2023): Delhi Police UAPA raids, seizing equipment, freezing accounts.

On the censorship front:

• BBC’s Modi documentary (2023): Blocked on YouTube and Twitter in India under emergency powers.
• Fridays for Future (2020): Climate activism websites blocked; activist Disha Ravi arrested for a “toolkit.”
• Poonam Agarwal (2025): Veteran investigative journalist had her entire YouTube channel banned after reporting on defense corruption and electoral finance. Unlike mainstream media outlets, her independent digital presence had no corporate shield—illustrating how censorship now directly targets grassroots digital spaces.
• Elon Musk’s X (2025): Filed a lawsuit against the Indian government, alleging arbitrary censorship via the Sahyog Portal—a “digital dragnet” that collapses surveillance, censorship, and compliance into a centralized regime.

India also remains the global leader in internet shutdowns, repeatedly cutting access during protests or unrest.

Defamation SLAPPs: Silencing Through Litigation

Defamation lawsuits—often with astronomical damage claims—have become tools to silence critical voices. These SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) create a chilling effect.

Notable cases:

• Keya Acharya vs. Karuturi Global (2014): ₹1 billion notice against environmental journalist.
• Gas Wars authors vs. Reliance (2014): Threats against investigative authors.
• Sahara vs. Tamal Bandyopadhyay (2014): ₹2 billion suit over exposé.
• IIPM vs. Caravan: Long-running defamation case, dismissed as “bogus.”
• Adani vs. The Wire (2017): Legal threats over investigative story.
• Bharat Biotech vs. The Wire (2022): ₹100 crore lawsuit over Covaxin coverage.
• Times Group & India Today vs. Newslaundry (2020–21): Multi-crore suits; YouTube strikes froze its channel.
• ANI vs. Wikimedia (2024–25): Attempt to force takedown of Wikipedia entries and unmask editors.
• Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (2017–25): Veteran journalist faced relentless SLAPP litigation from the Adani Group and Reliance for exposing corporate-political nexuses. He resigned from Economic and Political Weekly after an article on Adani was withdrawn under legal pressure, exemplifying how corporate influence throttles investigative journalism.
• DHFL Victims/OBMA Activists (2023–ongoing): Some DHFL victims have faced SLAPP litigation after raising questions about alleged crony connections and irregularities in the RBI-appointed CoC-led resolution process, including the resolution plan of Mr. Ajay Piramal (a relative of Ambani), which allegedly facilitated large-scale financial abuse. Legal actions were filed by DSK Legal, representing Mr. Piramal, claiming fictitious damages of ₹100 crore, along with online bans and geo-blocking of critical content, though without success in the pervasive cyber-age. Despite these intimidation tactics, only one DHFL victim continues to resist through digital activism, demonstrating extraordinary courage in the face of systemic suppression.⤡ ⤡

This intertwining of financial fraud, political protection, and censorship underscores how press suppression in present-day India safeguards crony capitalism.

Godi Media, the Public Sphere, and Manufacturing Consent

The dominance of “Godi media” (lapdog media) reflects not merely bias but the structural conversion of the fourth estate into a propaganda arm. Television news in India has devolved into infotainment and orchestrated outrage that makes it a kind of “Yellow Journalism”, targeting minorities or dissenting groups while amplifying government narratives that foreground religious fundamentalism to foreclose market fundamentalism.

This can be theorized through two critical lenses:

1. Habermas’s Public Sphere
   Habermas conceived the public sphere as a space of rational-critical debate, enabling citizens to deliberate independently of state and market coercion. In India, however, the colonization of this sphere is near total. Ownership concentration, censorship, and harassment have hollowed out deliberation, leaving behind a spectacle of noise and polarization. “Debates” are staged for television ratings, not truth-seeking.
2. Chomsky and Herman’s Propaganda Model
   Their framework of “manufacturing consent” explains how structural filters—ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and ideology—shape media output. In India:
   • Ownership & advertising: Reliance and Adani dominate industries and media alike, aligning economic and political interests.
   • Sourcing: State institutions and party spokespersons monopolize the agenda.
   • Flak: Defamation suits, trolling, and raids discipline dissenters.
   • Ideology: Hindutva nationalism delegitimizes critics as “anti-national.”

Thus, India exemplifies an advanced stage of manufactured consent: dissent is not always censored outright but suffocated structurally, ensuring propaganda masquerades as pluralism.

The Larger Democratic Crisis, and the Crises of Democracy

International monitors such as Freedom House and the V-Dem Institute converge on a bleak assessment: India can no longer be classified as a liberal democracy. Instead, it has descended into what scholars term an “illiberal democracy”—a system that retains the outward form of democracy through elections and elected representatives, yet hollowed out from within. Beneath this façade, fundamental democratic rights, accountability, transparency, and avenues of open communication have been systematically eroded.

• Freedom House (2025): Classifies India as “Partly Free,” citing attacks on journalists, NGOs, and minorities.
• V-Dem (2025): Labels India an “electoral autocracy,” ranking it 100th in the Liberal Democracy Index.

This democratic backsliding mirrors the rise of digital authoritarianism—a blend of algorithmic control, surveillance capitalism, and majoritarian populism.

Conclusion: The Need for Urgency

Press freedom in India is not simply under pressure; it is in systemic decline. The convergence of legal repression, media capture, online censorship, violent impunity, and SLAPP litigation paints a grim picture.

The theoretical framing makes the decline clearer:

• From a Habermasian lens, India’s public sphere has been hollowed out, replaced by propaganda, intimidation, and infotainment.
• From a Chomskyan lens, media operates as a system of manufacturing consent, producing ideological conformity under the guise of pluralism.

But to ground this crisis in Indian democratic thought, B. R. Ambedkar’s warning remains vital: liberty of thought, expression, and press is the very “guarantee of democracy.” Without these, constitutional democracy risks degenerating into majoritarian tyranny. Ambedkar foresaw that democracy in India could not survive without protecting dissenting voices; today, his fears stand vindicated.

This crisis reflects not just shrinking press freedom but a re-engineering of public discourse itself, where misinformation thrives, truth-telling is punished, and corporate-political nexuses suppress dissent. Protecting journalists from violence and harassment, reforming draconian laws, curbing government influence in media ownership, and safeguarding online freedoms are urgent imperatives. Without these, India risks losing not just its press freedom but the very democratic ethos it has long claimed to embody.

SEE ALSO: