Small-town journalists at higher risk of arrest than those from cities: Report

The report, ‘Pressing Charges’, A Study of Criminal Cases against Journalists across States in India, was authored by the National Law University in Delhi; TrialWatch, an initiative of Clooney Foundation for Justice; and Columbia University’s Institute of Human Rights. It was released on Tuesday.

The report primarily analysed criminal action against journalists in relation to their work between 2012-2022. It found that criminal cases were registered against 427 journalists in 28 states and union territories.

These journalists faced criminal charges 624 times, with 60 of the 427 journalists implicated in multiple cases — each being recorded as a separate incident.

Further, 232 of these 624 incidents were in metropolises while 243 were in smaller cities and towns.

Reasons why they faced charges:

• Reporting on public officials was the most common reason journalists faced cases. It was the basis for charges in 147 incidents, the report notes.
• Second, “FIRs were also commonly filed against journalists reporting on religion or protests,” with promoting enmity “most likely to be charged against journalists in large cities”.
• Another offence that journalists were charged with was “offences against public servants”. This, the report noted, was disproportionately used against journalists reporting at the state or local level, or those based in small cities and towns.

The defamation charge was used more against big city journalists and those reporting in English.

A potential explanation, the report stated, could be that offences such as disobeying or obstructing public servants were slapped against journalists covering local events on the ground, while defamation — which is prosecuted privately — was pursued by complainants with greater resources.

• Further, offences geared at limiting disruptions to public order (such as offences against public tranquillity and promoting enmity) were used against national-level journalists as well as against digital media or speech on social media. This charge was used where the concern was presumably that the message could ‘go viral’.

“… These cases protect individuals and institutions in power — the reputation of public officials is protected to avoid a challenge to existing power structures. While reporting on religion or protests is discouraged because of the supposed risks of creating inter-communal or citizen-government conflict,” the report stated.

While a vast majority of the charges involved alleged violations of the Indian Penal Code (a total of 579 out of 624 incidents or 93%), 107 incidents involved offences under the IPC as well as the Information Technology Act.

There were also 21 incidents of UAPA charges.

Journalists from small towns more at risk

The report found that not only did journalists from smaller towns face more criminal cases compared to those from metropolises, but they were also more vulnerable to arrest.

They were also granted protection from arrest — either as anticipatory bail or as interim protection from arrest — fewer times. This, the report surmised, can be explained by better access to justice in metropolises.

“While in 65% of incidents involving journalists from major metropolises, journalists managed to secure interim protection from arrest, the percentages dropped significantly to only 3% for small cities/towns… For journalists outside of major metropolises, regular bail was the most frequent form of relief — meaning they were only able to secure their liberty after arrest…,” the report records.

Of the information on arrest and pre-trial detention available for 515 of the 624 incidents, the analysis in the report shows that while overall arrests were effected in 40% of the incidents, journalists were arrested 24% of the time in metropolises, compared to 58% in small cities and towns.

The difference in access to justice also plays out during trials.

In as many as 89% of the incidents where a stay on trial was granted by constitutional courts (HCs or SC), it was to journalists from metropolises. No journalist from the smaller towns and cities could obtain a stay, the report states.