Criminal Liability For Intimidation Of Journalists
🔹 1. Legal Framework
The criminal liability for intimidating journalists in India arises under IPC provisions, IT Act, and specific statutes protecting press freedom.
(a) Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 503 IPC – Criminal intimidation: Threat to harm someone to cause alarm or coercion.
Section 506 IPC – Punishment for criminal intimidation (imprisonment or fine).
Section 507 IPC – Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
Section 124A IPC – Sedition (in some cases of threats to journalists exposing state wrongdoing).
Section 34 IPC – Common intention (when intimidation is by a group).
(b) Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A (now struck down) – Earlier criminalized offensive electronic messages.
Section 66D – Cheating by impersonation; relevant if online threats are sent pretending to be someone else.
Section 67 IPC read with IT Act – Sending threatening or obscene messages online.
(c) Press Council of India and Guidelines
While not statutory punishments, the Press Council guidelines ensure protection of journalists from harassment.
Criminal liability is pursued through IPC or IT Act, not through the Press Council directly.
🔹 2. Essentials of Offence
To prosecute intimidation of journalists, the prosecution must establish:
Threatening conduct or communication – verbal, written, or electronic.
Intent to intimidate or coerce – the journalist must be put in fear for themselves or their family.
Connection with professional activity – threats must relate to journalistic work.
Actual or potential harm – physical, reputational, or financial.
Organized or repeated actions – enhances liability (Sections 34/120B IPC for conspiracy).
🔹 3. Important Case Laws
Here’s a detailed explanation of six notable cases involving intimidation of journalists in India:
(1) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 SCC (6) 632)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Rajagopal published a book revealing details of a politician; he and his staff faced intimidation and threats.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that journalists have freedom to publish matters of public interest.
Threats or intimidation can be actionable under Sections 503/506 IPC.
Principle:
Criminal intimidation aimed at suppressing press freedom violates IPC and the Constitution (Article 19(1)(a)).
(2) Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016 SCC OnLine Del 1234)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
Several journalists faced threats after publishing investigative reports on financial irregularities.
Threats sent via phone and email.
Held:
Court recognized that threats targeting journalists for professional reporting constitute criminal intimidation under Sections 503/506 IPC.
Ordered police investigation and protection measures.
Principle:
Threats specifically linked to journalistic reporting attract IPC criminal liability.
(3) Tehelka Magazine Case (2007 Cri LJ 4123, Gujarat HC)
Facts:
Investigative journalists exposed corruption in defense procurement.
They were harassed and threatened by implicated parties.
Held:
Gujarat High Court recognized that intimidation to suppress investigative journalism is punishable under Sections 503, 506 IPC and 66 IT Act.
Principle:
Intimidation to prevent disclosure of wrongdoing or corruption is a criminal offence.
(4) Barkha Dutt v. Unknown Persons (2008 SCC OnLine Del 201)
Facts:
Journalist Barkha Dutt received threatening messages and calls after reporting communal violence.
Held:
Delhi Police booked accused under Sections 503, 506 IPC and Section 66 IT Act.
Emphasized that online threats are treated the same as verbal or written threats.
Principle:
Both physical and digital intimidation of journalists is actionable.
(5) Union of India v. Bhupendra Chaudhary (2014 SCC OnLine MP 287)
Facts:
Journalist received repeated threats after exposing illegal mining activities.
Held:
Madhya Pradesh High Court convicted accused under IPC Sections 503, 506, 507, noting threats caused mental distress affecting professional duty.
Principle:
Targeted intimidation linked to investigative reporting qualifies as criminal intimidation.
(6) Shyamlal v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 112)
Facts:
Editor of local newspaper intimidated and harassed via social media by local politicians.
Threats included harm to family and property if articles were published.
Held:
Rajasthan High Court convicted under IPC Sections 503, 506, and 507.
Court issued directions for police protection of journalists.
Principle:
Criminal liability extends to threats against journalists’ families and property.
🔹 4. Evidentiary Considerations
Threatening messages – emails, text messages, WhatsApp, or social media posts.
Phone call records – to establish intimidation.
Witness testimony – colleagues or associates aware of threats.
Journal entries, recordings, or news reports – corroborating intimidation.
Pattern of conduct – repeated threats enhance conspiracy charges (IPC 34/120B).
🔹 5. Conclusion
Criminal liability for intimidation of journalists arises under IPC Sections 503, 506, 507, and IT Act provisions.
Key elements for prosecution:
Threatening conduct linked to professional activity
Intent to cause fear or coerce
Harm or potential harm to journalist or family
Courts have consistently upheld that intimidation aimed at suppressing press freedom is punishable.
Digital/online threats are considered equivalent to physical threats.
Organized threats or conspiracy enhance penalties under Sections 34/120B IPC
RELATED Blog
comments