I. Introduction

The heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, nearly escalated into a full-scale war in May 2025.[1] Yet the real war had raged within, when its voices were silenced and dissent was treated as a threat to national security.

The core question emanating from the recent India-Pakistan conflict is whether the right to dissent and freedom of the press can truly exist within the constraints of the present political system in India. The recent State practices have made it risky for ordinary citizens to leave any space for meaningful journalism.  

On May 8, the social media platform X reportedly blocked more than 8,000 accounts in India after receiving direct orders from the government.[2] The Global Government Affairs handle made the announcement, and X stated that no explanation for the action had been received.[3] Several Indian accounts, including those of media outlets, journalists, and content creators covering the event, were blocked, along with Pakistani accounts, in the name of censoring disinformation.[4]

Notably, the Supreme Court of India is yet to examine the constitutionality and legality of India’s speech-restrictive laws, including the offence of sedition in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, for which the Constitution bench has not been constituted since the matter was referred in 2023.[5] The misuse of sedition provisions has led to prolonged detentions without convictions for years, and expanding its scope under different labels risks perpetuating the same repressive consequences. 

II. The Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression and Press 

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, along with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, are the two primary international standards that guarantee freedom of expression to everyone irrespective of their legal status or location worldwide.[6]

Further, freedom of speech is also protected in the three human rights treaties under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR), and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.[7]

Additionally, the United Nations General Assembly, through Resolution 59(1), declared freedom of information as a fundamental human right at its first session in 1946.[8] The Indian Constitution guarantees this right as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.[9]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution enshrines the freedom of the press, ensuring it can perform its essential democratic function.[10] In New York Times Co. v. United States (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected governmental censorship, affirming that the press must remain free to critique the government and expose its actions, thereby safeguarding public accountability.[11]

The Supreme Court of India, along similar lines, in the important landmark judgement of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), held that freedom of speech and expression is a basic tenet of a democratic society and cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by the State. It further emphasized that restrictions under Article 19(2) must be reasonable and constitutional.[12] In another historic judgement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court overruled Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as it violated the Fundamental Right of Free Speech and Expression over the Internet by allowing arbitrary arrests and censorship.[13]

Essentially, the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression allows every citizen to freely share their views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions through speech, writing, print, media, or any other means of communication. However, the restrictions imposed on journalists continue to escalate in contemporary India, directly contravening the various international conventions and the state's fundamental rights. This raises critical questions about the State’s authority to determine what narratives are erased and whose voices are silenced.

III. Comparative Analysis of Indian and Foreign Interpretations on the Matter

According to Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola (2005), a free, uncensored, and independent press is vital to the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the enjoyment of other fundamental rights.[14] Similarly, in McCartan Turkington Breen v. Times Newspapers Ltd (2009), the press was recognized as one of the cornerstones of a democratic society.[15] The importance of press independence was further emphasized in Baruch Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru (2001), where it was noted that journalists must be afforded the necessary protection and autonomy to inform the public effectively.[16]

The freedom of the press also includes the right to access sources of information, as established in Associated Press v. United States (1945), as the public interest is best served when information is disseminated as widely as possible.[17] Moreover, state authorities ought to ensure that public broadcasting services operate independently, as observed in the concluding observations on the Republic of Moldova.[18]

While reasonable restrictions may be imposed, the Johannesburg Principles clarify that limitations based on national security are legitimate only when they protect against actual or imminent threats involving the use or threat of force. In the absence of such threats, as is the case in the present matter, such restrictions cannot be justified. 

As per Lingens v. Austria (1986) and Barthold v. Germany (1985), any restriction on freedom of expression must meet the test of necessity in a democratic society, responding to a pressing social need and being proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.[19] Parallelly, the Supreme Court of India, in Chintaman Rao v. State of UP (1951), observed that reasonable restrictions should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature.[20] Further, the court, in M. Hasan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998), laid down that any restriction imposed upon the freedom of speech is prima facie unconstitutional, unless it can be justified under the limitation clause provided under clause 19(2).[21]

IV. Contradictions in the Interpretation of Freedom of Speech

India ranks 151 out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index.[22] The State using archaic and draconian laws of sedition, defamation, and anti-terrorism against dissent is not a new phenomenon. Over the years, India has recorded a staggering 443 internet shutdowns in the conflict-ridden region of Jammu and Kashmir alone.[23] Additionally, laws like the Telecommunications Act of 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 give the state unprecedented dominance over the media.[24]

A joint report titled "Pressing Charges" by the Clooney Foundation for Justice, National Law University Delhi, and Columbia Law School highlights the systemic delays in criminal proceedings against journalists in India, which have contributed to an atmosphere of fear, financial strain, and professional disruption. The study examined 624 incidents between 2012 and 2022, revealing that more than 65 percent of the 244 tracked cases remained unresolved. Police investigations were pending in 40 percent of the cases, while only six percent had resulted in either conviction or acquittal.[25]

The report further noted a disproportionate impact on journalists from smaller towns and regional media outlets. These journalists were arrested more frequently and were significantly less likely to obtain bail compared to their counterparts in metropolitan areas. Only three percent of them received interim protection, in contrast to 65 percent of journalists based in major cities.[26]

Anti-terrorism laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) (1967) have also been discriminatingly used against journalists, lawyers, students, and workers under the pretext of national security and public order.[27] Sixteen journalists have been charged under UAPA from 2010 to this date, and about seven of them are still facing jail time.[28]

Numerous journalists continue to face prolonged incarceration without any reasonable justification under various speech-restrictive laws, and those who are ultimately acquitted often endure years of legal hardship before securing any relief from the State.[29]

V. Conclusion and Way Forward 

Under Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States are obligated to take all necessary steps to ensure the protection of the right to freedom of expression, including the adoption of appropriate laws and measures and providing effective remedies to individuals whose rights have been violated.[30]

Recently, in January 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with the lower court’s decision to deny bail to a journalist who has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act without providing any substantive reasons for the refusal.[31]

Once again, freedom of the press is in crisis in “the world’s largest democracy.” Arbitrary State powers over media are increasing exponentially. The Judiciary is an independent institution, and the separation of powers is the cornerstone of democracy in India. The judiciary must take a firm stand to deliver judgments that strictly abide by the Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a) and various International Conventions.

[1] Callum Sutherland, "India and Pakistan: A Timeline of Tensions Over Kashmir," Time (May 8, 2025), https://time.com/7283794/india-pakistan-kashmir-tensions-timeline-history-conflict/

[2] Gowhar Geelani, "In the Government's War on 'Disinformation', Facts Are Collateral Damage," The Hindu Frontline (May 10, 2025), https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/india-pakistan-tensions-censorship-press-freedom-social-media-ban/article69560634.ece.

[3] Post from Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs), X (May 8, 2025, 10:25 PM IST), https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920522981744238814.

[4] The Hindu Bureau, "More than 8,000 X Accounts Blocked in India; The Wire Says Will Challenge Site Blocking," The Hindu (May 9, 2025), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/x-says-it-blocked-8000-accounts-in-india-after-govts-executive-orders/article69554836.ece.

[5] S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 682/2021 (India).

[6] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948), at art. 19; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, at art. 19.

[7] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 312 E.T.S. 5, at art. 10; American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 9 I.L.M. 673, at art. 13; African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, June 27, 1981, 21 I.L.M. 59, at art. 9.

[8] G.A. Res. 59(1), U.N. GAOR, 1st Sess., U.N. Doc. A/64/Add.2 (vol. II) (1947).

[9] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).

[10] U.S. CONST. amend. I.

[11] New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

[12] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 (India).

[13] Information Technology Act, 2000, § 66A (India); Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 (India).

[14] Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002 (U.N. Human Rights Comm. 2005).

[15] McCartan Turkington Breen v. Times Newspapers Ltd 2009 4 All ER 913 (HL). 

[16] Baruch Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 74 (Feb. 6, 2001).

[17] Associated Press v. United States 326 U.S. 1 (1945). 

[18] U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on the Combined Twelfth to Fourteenth Periodic Reports of the Republic of Moldova, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/MDA/CO/12-14 (2017).

[19] Lingens v. Austria, 8 Eur. H.R. Rep. 407 (1986); Barthold v. Germany, 7 Eur. H.R. Rep. 383 (1985).

[20] Chintaman Rao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 (India).

[21] M. Hasan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 35 (India).

[22] Reporters Without Borders, "Violence Against Journalists in India," https://rsf.org/en/country/india (last visited Oct. 22, 2025).

[23] Software Freedom Law Centre, "Internet Shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir," http://internetshutdowns.in/static-page/jammu-kashmir/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2025).

[24] Telecommunications Act, 2023 (India); Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India).

[25] Clooney Foundation for Justice, National Law University Delhi & Columbia Law School, "Pressing Charges: A Study of Criminal Cases Against Journalists Across States in India" (2025), https://pressing-charges.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Pressing-Charges-Report-Digital.pdf.

[26] Id

[27] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (India); Jurist News, "The Continuing Threat of India's Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to Free Speech," https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/06/bhandari-pokhriyal-uapa-free-speech/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2025). 

[28] The Wire, "16 Indian Journalists Have Been Charged Under UAPA, 7 Are Currently Behind Bars," https://thewire.in/media/16-indian-journalists-have-been-charged-under-uapa-7-are-currently-behind-bars (last visited Oct. 22, 2025).

[29] Hindustan Times, Activist Prashant Rahi acquitted in 2007 Maoist case,  https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/activist-prashant-rahi-acquitted-in-2007-maoist-case-101642172228912.html.

[30] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 6, at art. 2(2).

[31] SCO Observer, Has the Supreme Court done enough to protect press freedom?, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/has-the-supreme-court-done-enough-to-protect-press-freedom/.