Given that India was ranked 161st (out of 180) in the World Press Freedom Index, legislation such as the Chhattisgarh Mediapersons Protection Bill 2023 does need some scrutiny.
—
ON March 22 this year, the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly cleared the Chhattisgarh Mediapersons Protection Bill, 2023. The Act provides an interesting, helpful definition of ‘media persons’ and also calls for the creation of a committee that specifically deals with issues faced by them.
In their 2018 manifesto, the Indian National Congress (INC) had promised to enact special laws for the protection of journalists, and almost four and a half years after the government was sworn in, the party finally fulfilled its commitment. While the decision was hailed as “historic” by Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, members of the Opposition claimed that the Bill needed appropriate consultation and should be sent to the ‘select committee’ of the assembly for scrutiny.
Also read: Has Congress Reneged on its Promise of Securing Adivasi Rights in Chhattisgarh
Background
Since the state’s formation back in 2000, the relationship between the Chhattisgarh government and the media has been lukewarm at best; in fact, some have even described it as hostile relationship. The state has used the excuse of battling Maoist insurgency to clamp down on journalists who don’t toe the line.
In 2016, a report by the Editor’s Guild stated, “The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it.”
Since the state’s formation back in 2000, the Chhattisgarh government has had a rough, almost hostile relationship with the media. The state has used the excuse of battling Maoist insurgency to clamp down on journalists who don’t toe the line.
When journalists refuse, harsh cases follow them. For example, Prakash Chand Dhoka, the Balaghat correspondent of the Hindi daily Lokmat Samachar, found himself on the receiving end of an extortion case filed by the police when he exposed their excesses against members of tribal communties.
Also read: Pushed to the brink, Adivasis march against coal mine expansion in Hasdeo Arand, Chhattisgarh
In 2018, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost elections in the state after 15 years of uninterrupted rule, there was much hope that the government’s attitude towards the media would change. However, that didn’t happen. In March 2021, journalist Sunil Namdev, a staunch critic of Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, was arrested and his farmhouse was later destroyed by the Nava Raipur Development Authority.
In yet another incident in December last year, Nilesh Sharma, editor of Indiawriters.co.in, was arrested for writing a satirical article on the state government. The crackdown prompted the editor of Bhumkal Samachar magazine, Kamal Shukla, to go as far as to say that the Congress government was worse than the BJP government when it came to dealing with the media.
Given this environment of intimidation, the state government decided to overhaul the government–media relationship and provide a safeguard mechanism for the journalists.
Decoding the Act
This Act tackles four important issues. Firstly, it defines a ‘media person’? Secondly, it lays down the eligibility criteria to register with the state as a media person. Thirdly, it creates a mechanism on the formation of special committees on journalists. Fourthly, it specifies punishment for violation of a media person’s rights.
Also read: Registration of Press and Periodicals Bill, 2019 Paves way for State to Curb Freedom of Press
The Act gives a broad definition of the term ‘media person’, not limiting it to journalists alone but also including stringers, freelancers, hawkers, and even ‘agents’ (people involved in collecting and forwarding news or information to the media). The Act also extends protection to people who may face threats and intimidation because of collaboration with journalists.
The Act also tries to accommodate female journalists’ voices in the decision-making process.
The criteria to be considered a media person by the state are that the individual should have published at least six articles in the previous three months or received three payments from a media organisation in the previous six months or published photographs three times in the previous three months or be a certified employee in a media organisation.
The ‘special committee for the protection of mediapersons’, as envisaged by the Act, will include a high court judge, three journalists and a police officer not below the rank of additional director general of police (ADG). There shall also be ‘risk management units’ (RMU) in every district, comprising the district collector, police superintendent and two media persons of more than seven years of experience (at least one shall preferably be a woman).
The Act dictates that any public servant who “willfully neglects duties” shall be punished (the Act doesn’t categorically state what constitutes and neglect of duties and how the errant public servant will be punished). It also states that if a private person engages in violence, harassment or intimidation of a media person, they can be punished with a fine of up to ₹25,000. There is also a provision for a fine of ₹10,000 for journalists who peddle fake news.
Power imbalance
Ideally, a Bill designed to protect a vulnerable group should not have provisions that also prescribe punishment in case a member of that group engages in wrongdoing.
The fact that there is a clause to punish journalists who engage in fake news reporting, a buzzword that in the past has been used by police to arrest reporters, highlights the skewed power relations ingrained in the Act. Whereas, some might argue that ₹10,000 is not that big an amount, but for people at the very grassroots covered within the ambit of this Act, who at times do not have the backing of any large media company, it is a huge sum. Moreover, fake news is a vague term and codifying punishment for it will give undue power to the State.
Also read: UP court denies bail to journalist Siddique Kappan
Several provisions from the draft Bill of 2020 have been deleted. Most noteworthy is the removal of a year-long punishment for public servants who neglect their duties.
There is also an overrepresentation of the State in the commission established for journalists. As noted by Kamal Shukla, “No journalist reporting against the government can expect a just assessment from the collector or the Superintendent of Police (SP) as members of RMU.”
The fact that there is a clause to punish journalists who engage in fake news reporting, a buzzword that in the past has been used by police to arrest reporters, highlights the skewed power relations ingrained in the Act.
Most importantly, there is no inbuilt guarantee that the police will act on the recommendation of the committee as no specifics are directing it to do so.
The good
To look at this Act as an exercise in state-backed malice would be unfair, given the fact that this Bill at least tries to create a safe environment for journalists is a positive development. It must also be noted that journalists in Chhattisgarh don’t exclusively face pressure from the State but there is also a large Naxal and mafia network which makes life difficult for them. Having specific provisions from threats by individuals ensures that intimidations can be reported and retaliatory actions can be avoided.
Several provisions from the draft Bill of 2020 have been deleted. Most noteworthy is the removal of a year-long punishment for public servants who neglected their duties.
The Bill is also charitable with its definition and scope. It tries to include as many people associated with the media as possible, thus reducing insecurity within the media fraternity when it comes to covering stories.
The Act also tries to accommodate female journalists’ voices in the decision-making process.
Given that the Bill is being implemented only a few months before the elections, its electoral nature can’t be denied. It seems to be more about making a headline than overhauling the system.
To look at this Act as an exercise in state-backed malice would be unfair. Given the fact that this Bill at least tries to create a safe environment for journalists is a positive development.
Also read: Why is there a surge of violence against Tribals in India?
Overall, the Bill does have the capacity to empower people reporting against Naxal movements and mafia activities in the state but as far as the government’s clampdown is concerned, not much shall change for people on the ground.
