Protect Journalists, Don't License Them

A Licence to Report Is a Licence to Silence

TAN's position is plain: India should protect journalists more widely, but it should not license them. A proposal argued in The Hindu calls for a national media council, modelled on the Bar Council of India and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

The council would recognise working and freelance journalists, camerapersons and technicians and might require a degree or diploma in journalism for a licence. It sounds like professional order. In practice, it would give a body created by law the power to decide who may report.

Why licensing is the wrong tool The Constitution does not treat press freedom as a professional privilege.

Since Romesh Thappar in 1950, the Supreme Court has located it within Article 19(1)(a), the freedom of speech and expression of every citizen. A lawyer's licence regulates who may represent clients in court. A journalist's "licence" would regulate who may gather and publish facts about public life, which is speech itself.

International law is explicit. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 34 states that "general State systems of registration or licensing of journalists are incompatible" with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the ICCPR.

The existing system already shows how gatekeeping excludes people:

• PIB and DIP accreditation is quota-based, tied to circulation, subscribers or digital traffic.
• Many reporters at recognised outlets go unaccredited and freelancers rarely qualify.
• The 2022 PIB guidelines allow withdrawal of accreditation on grounds that mirror Article 19(2). A licence regime would add a further layer of discretion over who is allowed to report.

The strongest objection The objection deserves to be taken seriously.

Anyone with a phone can now claim to be a journalist. Some content creators sensationalise for clicks. Police at a crowded protest cannot tell an accredited reporter from an agitator with a camera. Hearing petitions about journalists at the 10 October Delhi protests, Chief Justice Surya Kant cautioned that if everyone becomes a journalist, it creates problems for others.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi suggested different tiers of protection. The Solicitor General argued that digital technology has blurred the line.

Why the

position still holds The objection proves that protection needs a verifiable signal, not that the state must license the profession. Three distinctions resolve it:

1. Protect the act, not the title. Anyone documenting events in public should be free from arbitrary detention. That is a citizen's right, not a credential.
2. Tier access, not liberty. Privileged access to press galleries or briefings can reasonably be tiered. Freedom from detention for reporting cannot.
3. Let verification come from outside the state. Voluntary registries run by press clubs, journalists' unions or independent self-regulators can issue checkable credentials without giving any government a veto. Misinformation is a real harm, but it is addressed by laws on content: defamation, incitement and fraud. Controlling entry into the profession does not address it.