India Needs a National Media Council

During the protests, several freelance and independent journalists, along with digital content creators, were reportedly removed from the protest site and sent to detention centers. Only journalists carrying accreditation issued by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) or the Directorate of Information and Publicity (DIP) were allowed to cover the protests.

The issue has intensified further as the Supreme Court, while hearing a PIL on protection of freelance journalists, questioned who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age and stressed the need for a national protocol and a unified media regulatory framework.

This incident has raised an important question: Who has the authority to recognize someone as a journalist, and should government accreditation determine who can perform journalistic duties?

In today's digital age, anyone with a smartphone, camera, and internet connection can report an event, share news, or broadcast a protest live. But does having a camera automatically make someone a journalist? And more importantly, who decides who qualifies as a journalist?

These questions highlight a growing challenge for India's media ecosystem: how to distinguish professional journalism from ordinary digital content creation without restricting freedom of expression.

The debate is no longer limited to traditional newspapers and television channels. Freelancers, independent reporters, and digital journalists are increasingly becoming part of the country's information ecosystem.

The issue also reached the Supreme Court, where a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought protection of the freedom of expression of freelance journalists and content creators.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised an important question: Does the constitutional freedom of expression give every citizen the right to identify themselves as a journalist?

The Chief Justice expressed concern that if everyone started claiming to be a journalist, it could create difficulties for others.

During the hearing, senior advocate Indira Jaisingh argued for a national protocol that would prevent police from obstructing journalists performing their professional duties, particularly those carrying identity cards issued by their employers.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted the growing misuse of the term 'independent journalist.' He pointed out that some individuals use mobile phones to create sensational social media content, sometimes with the intention of gaining popularity and earning money.

This makes it important to examine India's existing journalist recognition system and understand why a National Media Council could become an important institutional reform.

In this context, the 2024 draft of the Media Transparency and Accountability Bill by the Press Club of India, which proposed setting up an NMC, among other reforms, has once again become relevant.

Institutional Regulation (Fragmented System):

The Sahyog portal is used for coordination between government agencies and platforms. In short, India has a scattered and quota-based system; print, TV, digital, and films are regulated by different bodies, with no unified protection for freelancers in the digital era.

1. Appointments and Executive Overreach: If the govt controls appointments, NMC can become a censorship tool instead of a protector. Real independence needs a multi-partisan or judicial collegium system, which governments are reluctant to allow.

2. Financial Autonomy: If NMC depends on the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) for funds, its independence is compromised. Alternative models like a corporate media cess face strong resistance from the industry.

3. Government Advertising Leverage: Centre and states use DAVP advertising funds to reward or punish media houses and engineer editorial compliance. Even with an independent NMC, this financial pressure will remain. As the Supreme Court held in Bennett Coleman vs. Union of India (1972), financial strangulation of the press violates Article 19(1)(a). The Court called the free press the "Ark of the Covenant of Democracy."

4. Constitutional Hurdles: Giving NMC punitive powers like fines, suspensions, or mandatory licensing can lead to gatekeeping. It may stifle investigative journalism and clash with freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).

5. Corporate Resistance: Big media conglomerates prefer the current self-regulation model like NBDSA. They will lobby hard against an NMC that threatens their TRP-driven business and cross-media monopolies.

6. Digital Complexity: Today the creator economy blurs the line between professional journalist and content creator. Also, digital platforms are borderless, so enforcing NMC orders across jurisdictions is very difficult.

The question of who is a journalist can no longer be answered with old yardsticks of print circulation or TV channels. In a digital and converged media era, freelancers, independent reporters and content creators are part of the information ecosystem. The debate around National Media Council is not about creating a licence to speak, that right belongs to every citizen under Article 19(1)(a). It is about creating a professional safety net, clear recognition, protection on ground, and accountability.

A co-regulated, independent and financially autonomous NMC, insulated from both government and corporate control, can give real teeth to the watchdog, protect freelancers without gatekeeping free speech, and bring transparency to cross-media ownership and algorithms.