Criminal Liability For Harassment Of Activists And Journalists
🔹 1. Concept of Criminal Liability for Harassment
a. Meaning of Harassment
Harassment refers to repeated or systematic behavior intended to intimidate, threaten, or silence individuals, especially those exercising their right to free speech, protest, or activism.
For activists and journalists, harassment can include:
Threats (physical or online)
Stalking or surveillance
Defamation and false charges
Police or state misuse of power (arbitrary arrests, raids)
Violence or murder intended to suppress expression
b. Legal Basis (in India)
Under Indian law, harassment of activists and journalists can invoke:
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 503–506: Criminal intimidation and threats
Section 354D: Stalking (including cyberstalking)
Section 509: Insulting modesty of a woman
Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
Section 302: Murder (in extreme cases of journalist killings)
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A (struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015) once criminalized online harassment; now other provisions like Section 67 apply for obscene material.
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Recognizes the duty of the State to protect individuals from rights violations, including harassment by public officials.
Constitution of India
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty (includes right to live with dignity and without fear)
🔹 2. Key Judicial Decisions and Case Law
Case 1: Gauri Lankesh Murder Case (State of Karnataka v. K.T. Naveen Kumar & Ors., 2018–ongoing)
Facts:
Gauri Lankesh, a journalist and activist known for her outspoken criticism of communal politics, was shot dead outside her Bengaluru home in 2017. Investigations linked the crime to extremist groups intolerant of dissent.
Legal Issue:
Whether the killing constituted targeted harassment and silencing of free speech protected under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment/Developments:
Multiple accused were charged under Sections 302 (murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 153A (promoting enmity) of IPC, along with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) provisions.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) concluded it was a pre-planned act of ideological suppression, showing how harassment escalated to murder.
Significance:
This case highlighted the criminal liability of conspirators who target journalists for ideological reasons, establishing that attacks on journalists are attacks on constitutional democracy.
Case 2: Priya Ramani v. M.J. Akbar (2021)
Facts:
Journalist Priya Ramani accused former Minister M.J. Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement. Akbar filed a criminal defamation case under Section 500 IPC.
Legal Issue:
Whether Ramani’s allegations constituted criminal defamation or legitimate expression against harassment.
Judgment:
The Delhi Court acquitted Ramani, holding that:
Women have the right to speak up about harassment “at any platform and at any time.”
The right to dignity under Article 21 outweighs a defamer’s right to reputation when truth and public good are involved.
Significance:
While not about threats or violence, this case reinforced journalistic freedom and accountability of power, recognizing harassment as a matter of public concern.
Case 3: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Section 66A of the IT Act criminalized sending “offensive” messages online. It was often misused against journalists, activists, and citizens critical of the government.
Legal Issue:
Whether Section 66A violated the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, stating it was vague and prone to misuse, leading to the arbitrary arrest and harassment of individuals expressing dissent.
Significance:
A landmark in protecting digital freedom of activists and journalists from criminal prosecution for their speech.
Case 4: Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020)
Facts:
Journalist Arnab Goswami was arrested in connection with an abetment to suicide case that had been closed years earlier. His arrest sparked debate about state misuse of power to target journalists.
Legal Issue:
Whether the arrest amounted to harassment and violation of personal liberty under Article 21.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court granted bail, emphasizing that:
“Liberty across the human history is a fundamental value, and deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one too many.”
Significance:
Reaffirmed that the criminal law should not be used as a tool of harassment against journalists, even when their reporting is controversial.
Case 5: Teesta Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2022–2023)
Facts:
Activist Teesta Setalvad was arrested for allegedly fabricating evidence in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots. Human rights groups alleged that her arrest was retaliatory harassment for her advocacy.
Legal Issue:
Whether the arrest and continued custody violated her right to liberty and expression.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court granted bail, observing that liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and that the prosecution must demonstrate specific grounds beyond mere allegations.
Significance:
The case symbolizes how activists face criminalization for human rights work and how courts safeguard freedom from state harassment.
(International Example) Case 6: Daphne Caruana Galizia Assassination (Malta, 2017–2023)
Facts:
Investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, known for exposing corruption in Malta’s government, was assassinated by a car bomb.
Legal Issue:
Whether the state failed to protect her from harassment and threats known to authorities before her death.
Judgment:
An independent inquiry in 2021 found the state “created an atmosphere of impunity” that enabled the assassination.
Significance:
Established state liability for failing to protect journalists from harassment and violence, reinforcing international human rights standards under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).
🔹 3. Principles Evolved from These Cases
Freedom of expression is a constitutional right; harassment or criminal intimidation aimed at silencing dissent violates Article 19(1)(a).
State accountability arises when public authorities misuse laws or fail to protect activists/journalists.
Criminal liability extends to:
Perpetrators of direct threats or violence.
Conspirators and abettors.
State officials complicit in harassment.
Courts emphasize proportionality—criminal law cannot be weaponized to punish expression.
Protection mechanisms (witness protection, safety protocols for journalists) must be implemented by the state.
🔹 4. Conclusion
Harassment of journalists and activists is not merely a personal wrong—it is a criminal offence that threatens democracy. Through the above cases, courts have consistently recognized:
The need for criminal accountability of perpetrators,
The constitutional protection of free expression, and
The duty of the state to ensure a safe environment for dissent.
These precedents reinforce that harassment, intimidation, or attacks on activists and journalists attract criminal liability under both domestic and international law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments