If every citizen becomes a journalist, it will create problems for all, says SC

The Supreme Court warned that treating every citizen as a journalist could create practical problems. The concern is not only about labels. It is also about deciding who receives special protection while covering crowded and sometimes tense protest venues. The court said freedom of expression does not automatically settle that question.

For example, protest sites may already contain many accredited reporters from registered media houses. They may also attract freelancers, influencers and reel-makers. If every person with a phone claims journalistic status, police may struggle to manage access, safety and competing claims. The court therefore questioned whether all such people should receive the same protection.

The issue remains open for detailed examination. CJI Surya Kant asked whether a particular category should receive extra protection, while Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed to different layers of protection. The ruling could shape how police treat independent media workers and digital creators at future protests.

PIB accreditation is official recognition issued through the Press Information Bureau, or PIB, a government information agency. Accreditation generally helps establish a journalist’s professional identity when dealing with public authorities. The article does not detail the application rules, but it shows that police treated PIB accreditation as an important credential.

At the protests, Delhi Police allegedly did not recognise independent and freelance journalists. Senior advocate Indira Jaising told the Supreme Court that police insisted on PIB accreditation. She argued instead for a national protocol that would prevent police from obstructing journalists who carry an identity card from their employer.

This matters because many journalists do not work for large registered media houses. Freelancers may lack PIB accreditation while still doing reporting work. The dispute asks whether police should accept other reliable proof of professional identity, or reserve additional protection for accredited and formally employed journalists.

The article names four kinds of people in the central comparison: accredited reporters, freelance journalists, influencers and reel-makers. It also separately refers to journalists employed by registered media houses. These labels show why the court saw the issue as more complicated than a simple journalist-versus-nonjournalist divide.

Accredited reporters are already covering protests in large numbers. Alongside them, independent journalists and freelancers may arrive without PIB accreditation. Influencers and reel-makers may also record and publish material from the same venues. Their work can look similar from a distance because all may use cameras or phones and share content publicly.

The Supreme Court did not decide that these groups should receive identical treatment. Justice Bagchi referred to layers of protection, while CJI Kant asked whether one category should receive an extra level of protection. The court said the differences require detailed examination before a final approach is set.

Police may struggle because digital tools make journalism and social-media publishing look similar. A person with a mobile phone can record an event, interview people and post video. Those actions alone do not show whether the person is reporting professionally or creating content mainly for online attention.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta gave the court a concrete example. He said anyone with a mobile phone could claim to be an independent or freelance journalist while actually making reels to gain popularity and earn money. He also warned that such content could present one-sided stories or sensationalise incidents.

That uncertainty matters at crowded protest venues. Police must decide whom to recognise without obstructing legitimate reporting. The court therefore considered whether special protection should apply to every claimant or to defined categories. Any future protocol will need to address identity, professional purpose and fair treatment without relying only on possession of a phone.

The article describes extra protection as an additional layer of safety or recognition for some journalists. It specifically mentions accredited journalists and people employed by registered media houses. However, the court did not identify a complete list of benefits, such as access rules or immunity from particular police actions.

The practical dispute is clear. Indira Jaising said Delhi Police did not recognise independent and freelance journalists covering protests and insisted on PIB accreditation. She sought a national protocol preventing police from obstructing professional work when a journalist carries an identity card from an employer. That would offer a route beyond PIB accreditation.

Freelancers are seeking similar protection because their work can still be professional even without a large media employer or PIB credential. The Supreme Court has not granted a final rule in the article. It said the question of which categories deserve extra protection requires detailed examination.

The Working Journalists Act is an Indian labour law concerning working journalists and their service conditions. It provides a legal framework for identifying and regulating certain classes of working journalists. The article does not spell out every class or protection under the Act, so its exact categories cannot be inferred from this report alone.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi brought the law into the discussion by saying that it makes classes among journalists. His point was that the court cannot decide modern protection questions without examining existing legal distinctions. Those distinctions may matter when comparing accredited reporters, employees of registered media houses, freelancers, influencers and reel-makers.

The law’s relevance is therefore part of the pending examination, not a final answer in the hearing described. The court must consider how older statutory categories fit digital media work today. It may also need to assess whether present protections should extend to independent journalists or remain limited to defined professional groups.

The constitutional right to freedom of expression protects people’s ability to communicate ideas and opinions. Press freedom is closely connected because journalism involves gathering and sharing information with the public. But expressing an opinion is not the same as being a professional journalist, and the article treats those questions as related but distinct.

The Supreme Court directly asked whether freedom of expression empowers every citizen to be a journalist. Justice Bagchi called that difficult. The discussion included accredited journalists, registered-media employees, freelancers, influencers and reel-makers. A person may have the right to speak while still not qualifying for every professional protection given to journalists.

The court has not settled the boundary. CJI Surya Kant said it may be necessary to identify a category entitled to an extra level of protection. The outcome could clarify how constitutional expression rights interact with professional recognition, police duties and reporting at protest venues.