Press freedom and accountability matter: Delhi High Court

During the proceedings, the prosecution argued that the attack on the applicant and his colleague constituted an attack on the freedom of the press. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Delhi High Court observed that these days, virtually anyone armed with a mobile phone and a microphone can claim to be a “reporter”, often without any journalistic training, ethical foundation or responsibility.

Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observation on 16 July 2026 when he granted bail to two persons allegedly involved in the assault of two freelance reporters for a YouTube channel. Reporters were filming a video at a place of worship in Delhi’s Seemapuri area, which was allegedly built without permission.

According to court records, the incident happened on July 4, 2025. The video upset local residents, who allegedly attacked the reporters and even chased them into the bus they boarded to escape. A mob, reportedly including the two accused, entered the bus and attacked the reporters.

Since “it was clearly a case of mass rage and as stated above, the involvement of the present accused/complainants in the alleged assault remains a gray area”, the court granted bail to both the accused.

During the proceedings, the prosecution argued that the attack on the applicant and his colleague constituted an attack on the freedom of the press. However, the court noted that the reporters were not affiliated with any accredited news organization but were freelancing for the YouTube channel.

“Despite the sensitivity of the matter, the complainant (reporters) clearly chose not to trust the local police before starting their business, although this cannot at all justify the attack on them by agitated locals,” Justice Kathpalia said.

The judge noted that in recent years, with the rapid spread of social media and digital platforms, a significant portion of the media has become largely unregulated and unorganized.

“It is increasingly common for such self-proclaimed reporters to aggressively thrust microphones at citizens and demand an immediate response. When a person chooses to remain silent or refuse to speak, which is the right of every citizen, the so-called reporter often turns to the camera and declares that the individual is avoiding questions,” the judge said, adding: “Such conduct creates misguided public pressure and creates a misleading public narrative.”

“Freedom of the press must of course remain zealously protected. But it cannot become a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation or dissemination of content that threatens public order,” Justice Kathpalia said.

He added: “The time has come for lawmakers to consider an appropriate regulatory framework that preserves press freedom while ensuring professional accountability, ethical standards and respect for the rule of law, citizens’ rights and the wider public interest.

Published – 17 Jul 2026 13:14 IST