Delhi High Court Calls for Media Regulation Amidst Concerns of Irresponsible Journalism
On July 16, the Delhi High Court underscored the necessity for legal measures to regulate media activities, emphasizing that freedom of the press should not serve as a shield for reckless journalism. Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed concern over the rise of self-proclaimed journalists, often lacking formal training and accountability, due to widespread access to mobile technology.
Freedom of Press vs. Public Order
Justice Kathpalia highlighted the need to zealously protect press freedom but cautioned against its misuse, which can lead to intimidation and disturbances in public order. The Court observed that while anyone with a mobile phone can claim the title of a reporter today, there is a pressing need for ethical grounding and accountability in journalism.
Case Background: Assault on YouTube Reporters
This judicial observation came during the hearing of a bail application involving two individuals, Abid Ali and Fukran, accused of assaulting freelance YouTube reporters. The reporters were allegedly attacked by a mob while filming an illegal construction in Seemapuri in July 2025. It was alleged that the mob forcibly took away the reporters’ equipment, including camera batteries and mobile phones.
Court’s Observations on Media Conduct
The Court noted that the behavior of the reporters may have incited local residents, cautioning against aggressive questioning and the creation of misleading narratives. Justice Kathpalia warned that such practices could exacerbate social divisions, spark tensions, and even lead to communal unrest.
Call for a Regulatory Framework
The Court stressed the urgent need for legislative action to establish a regulatory framework that balances press freedom with professional accountability and ethical standards. Justice Kathpalia called for preserving the rule of law, citizen rights, and the broader public interest while ensuring the media exercises restraint and fairness.
More Read
Granting of Bail and Judicial Criticism
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Kathpalia criticized the investigating officer for falsely claiming the presence of video evidence against the accused. The Court was displeased with the officer’s failure to appear and explain this discrepancy, emphasizing that neither judges nor police can afford to be on strike, even if lawyers are.
The Court ultimately granted bail to Abid Ali and Fukran, represented by Advocates Ankit Tandan and Abdul Gaffar respectively, while Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal represented the State.
