Judicial Voice for Press Freedom: Justice BV Nagarathna Advocates Reader-Funded Media Model
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi: In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional freedoms and democratic values, Supreme Court Judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Thursday underscored that a press sustained by its readers and civil society is best positioned to preserve its independence, warning that media institutions dependent on economic patronage remain structurally vulnerable to State influence.
‘The civil society must recognise that independent reporting is a public good worth paying for. On the other hand, good journalism doesn’t run on goodwill alone. When someone takes a subscription, they’re really saying, this kind of reporting is worth backing. A press sustained by its readers is always better placed to serve the public interest and fend off political pressures.”
Delivering the keynote address at the International Press Institute (IPI) India Award for Excellence in Journalism 2025 ceremony, held at the Constitution Club, Justice Nagarathna articulated a constitutional vision of press freedom grounded not merely in formal legal guarantees, but in economic autonomy and public support.
She cautioned that corporate-owned media houses, though formally independent, often remain constrained by economic realities and political linkages, creating a subtle but powerful architecture of influence. “The press may be free from the State in form, yet dependent on corporate power — and that corporate power, in turn, may itself be dependent on State patronage,” she observed, highlighting the layered vulnerabilities that threaten editorial independence even in the absence of overt censorship.
Justice Nagarathna warned that the gravest threats to press freedom are unlikely to arise through direct restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, but rather through indirect economic and regulatory pressures justified under Article 19(6). She noted that ownership rules, licensing regimes, taxation frameworks, advertising policies, and antitrust regulations, while constitutionally compliant on their face, possess the capacity to shape editorial behaviour and journalistic priorities.
“The most serious threats to press freedom are likely to arise not from direct censorship under Article 19(2), but from regulations justified under Article 19(6). Ownership rules, licensing laws, advertising policies, taxation and increasingly antitrust law may all be defended as economic regulation, even when they have profound effects on editorial independence. This allows the State to influence the press indirectly while maintaining formal compliance with Article 19(1)(a). In this way, freedom may exist in law, but may be weakened in practice”
“The law may not silence the press,” she remarked, “but it can shape the conditions under which speech is produced.” Drawing attention to the influence of government and public-sector advertising, she observed that editors may internalise the risks of critical reporting where financial sustainability is at stake, making lawful criticism economically costly or institutionally unsustainable.
Raising a fundamental constitutional question, Justice Nagarathna asked whether press freedom can truly exist if it is dependent on economic viability within competitive markets, and whether a genuinely free and balanced press is possible when journalism operates under financial constraint, political influence, and structural dependence. She cautioned against the rise of what she described as “selective journalism,” noting that attempts to capture the press often carry both economic and political underpinnings.
“These are the issues that the media must again begin seriously discussing because they challenge our many historically held assumptions and risk disruption. A challenge to free press cannot be countenanced but must be effectively tackled at the earliest. Therefore, a restraint on free and frank reporting and an emergence of what I call “Selective Journalism”, for want of a better expression, must be curbed.”
Emphasising that a free press cannot function under fear, influence, or centralised control, she stated that concentration of power undermines the vitality of independent media institutions and corrodes the democratic role of journalism.
Justice Nagarathna delivered the address while presenting the IPI India Award for Excellence in Journalism 2025 to Vaishnavi Rathore, reporter with Scroll.in, for her ground report on the Great Nicobar Island Development Project.
Commending ground-level reporting as a vital public function, the judge said such journalism bridges the gap between law, policy, and lived reality—particularly in domains such as climate change, environmental governance, and sustainable development.
She observed that journalists perform a constitutional role by translating abstract legal values into public consciousness through reporting on environmental degradation, climate risks, and ecological justice.
Justice Nagarathna further stated that press freedom flows from the combined operation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which protect both freedom of expression and the profession of journalism. However, she emphasised that constitutional guarantees alone are insufficient to sustain press freedom unless supported by society itself.
“Constitutional protection must be reinforced by social commitment,” she said, adding that public support for independent journalism is indispensable to democratic survival.
“In honouring journalism today,” Justice Nagarathna concluded, “we honour a deeper constitutional value — the freedom of the press — a freedom that enables truth to reach the public and ensures that the interests of the future are not eclipsed by the conveniences of the present.”
