Freedom of the Press in India in times of the Pandemic

Vatsal Srivastava | Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab | 8th April 2020

Introduction

The entire world has been under the drastic effect of the Coronavirus for more than a month now. Amidst this, the Government of India has ordered a nation-wide lockdown after having invoked the National Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Advisory issued by the Central Government to implement this lockdown led to a scenario, which brought up a Public Interest Litigation to the Supreme Court on the 31^st of March, 2020. 

Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India

Facts

A PIL was filed by Alakh Alok Srivastava to ensure the safety and welfare of the migrant laborers all over the country in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This concern initially developed when a profusion of daily-wage laborers residing in Delhi rushed to every possible means of transportation, allegedly due to a fake news that the country-wide lockdown would be carried out for more than three months. This news triggered fear among the masses of endangering their livelihood. Consequently, the State governments decided to transport migrant laborers from their borders to their villages. Furthermore, Ministry of Home Affairs issued a circular that forbade the movement of the laborers to prevent the potential widespread of the COVID-19. Before the Hon’ble Court, the Solicitor General of India contended that the spread of fake news was the core reason of this fiasco. As a result, he requested the court to issue a direction to the media (print, electronic and social) to ensure prior verification of news from the official sources before presenting them to the masses.

Issue

The primary issue that is dealt herewith was whether the freedom of press is absolute or can a legislation like NDMA, 2005 and a Government Advisory curb the same in a situation like the current one. It was for the Supreme Court to decide in critical times like these, the choice provided to the Press to pass the news through a mesh sieve or to let it pass with its probable vices.

Judgement

The Hon’ble Court assured the petitioner that the migrants would be safeguarded as they were shifted to nearby relief camps in addition to the necessary medical check-ups. It also directed that mental health officials and counselors be sent to maintain sanity as the pandemic might create panic. The Supreme Court acknowledged the Solicitor General’s contention wherein he claimed that the freedom of press can be partially withdrawn in the stressing times of rampant escalation of COVID-19. Nonetheless, the media was asked by the Court to maintain a sense of responsibility in the dissemination of the news, avoiding futile ruckus. The Court also assured that a daily bulletin through all media avenues to clear the doubts of people would be made active within a period of 24 hours as submitted by the Solicitor General of India. The most important aspect in the order by the Supreme Court was with reference to the role of the media as plays a necessary and significant character in situations like the present, thereby directing all types of media channels to publish only the official version of the developing news.

Analysis

The Supreme Court strived to redress the grievances of the migrant laborers and also to guard the freedom of press and taking into consideration the situation at hand, it succeeded in doing so. It did not let the rights of media be deconstructed and at the same time brought up a suggestion that indeed ensured the safety of the public. Fake news spreads all around the world and it might end up generating circumstances in which impulsive measures cannot be avoided. It may not be feasible in every situation to concur to every distinct opinion, although the court handled the affairs seemingly well without jeopardizing either party’s rights. The media shapes the views of every individual and influence the society in a very prominent way following which, it should own up to its liability. The judgement of the court is a relief for the commoners and it should be for the media too, as it takes a step ahead in ensuring nothing but the true purpose of having the responsibility of being a media platform in a democratic country.