The article begins with a recent appeal made by the Central Government to the Supreme Court. The government urged that media outlets should only publish or broadcast information regarding COVID-19 after confirming the factual position from the government, citing this as being in the “larger interest of justice.”
Key Points of The Government’s Argument
The government expressed concern over what it termed as “any deliberate or inaccurate” reporting by the media, especially web portals, during such an unparalleled situation. It argued that this could potentially cause panic among a larger section of society. The government particularly blamed “fake and misleading” messages on social media platforms for causing widespread panic, which led to mass “barefoot” migrations of migrant workers from urban areas to their native places in rural India. The Central government argued that these mass migrations were counterproductive to the preventive measures taken to control the pandemic.
The Stand of Supreme Court
In response to the government’s plea, the Supreme Court balanced the rights of a free press with the need to prevent societal panic during such an unprecedented crisis. The Court upheld the right to hold a free discussion about COVID-19 but directed the media to refer to and publish the official version of developments in order to prevent inaccuracies and large-scale panic. The court also ordered the government to initiate a daily bulletin on COVID-19 developments through all media channels within the next 24 hours.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
At its core, this incident brought into focus the constitutional provision of Article 19(1)(a), according to which all citizens are entitled to freedom of speech and expression. The roots of this Article can be traced back to the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn promise is made to ensure liberty of thought and expression for all citizens. Nevertheless, the exercise of this right is subject to “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2). These restrictions can be imposed in the interest of several broad categories, including the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or relating to contempt of court, defamation or the incitement of offenses.
This recent appeal by the government and subsequent Supreme Court decision shine a light on the delicate balance between freedom of expression and responsible reporting, especially during periods of crisis. The events underscore the importance of accurate, fact-checked information in preventing widespread panic and ensuring public cooperation with government measures.
