Study reveals more than 40% journalists charged under UAPA since 2010 were charged in 2020
Free Speech Collective's study, titled "Behind Bars” highlights Press Freedom concerns in India
The increasing number of journalists facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) in India has raised significant concerns about the state of press freedom in the country. Since 2010, a total of 16 journalists have been charged under the draconian UAPA, a law initially designed to curb terrorist activities. However, its recent application against journalists investigating various issues has raised questions about the criminalization of legitimate journalistic work and the stifling impact on their profession.
The UAPA's punitive process, aimed at making incarceration the norm and bail the exception, has led to prolonged legal battles for those charged. Out of the 16 journalists charged, two managed to secure their freedom, one through acquittal and the other via discharge. Over the past decade, charges related to patriotism, national security, and alleged anti-national activities have been included in the UAPA arsenal, exemplified by the recent arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, the editor of the news portal Newsclick.
The First Information Report (FIR) against Purkayastha and the head of its human resources department, Amit Chakravarty, cites multiple sections of the UAPA, including Sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (conspiracy), and 22 (C) (offenses by companies, trusts), along with Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 120B (criminal conspiracy). These charges, often used against journalists, highlight the broader issue of press freedom in the country.
The Free Speech Collective's study, titled "Behind Bars," which analyzed a decade of journalists arrested in India (2010-20), revealed that 154 journalists faced arrest, detention, interrogation, or show cause notices for their professional work. More than 40 percent of these instances occurred in 2020. Additionally, nine foreign journalists faced deportation, arrest, interrogations, or were denied entry into India, further indicating the challenging environment faced by the press.
In a democratic society, journalists serve as messengers of news and information. Silencing them not only hampers their ability to report on vital issues but also compromises citizens' democratic right to access information without fear.
List of Journalists Charged Under UAPA (2010 till date):
- Journalists Currently Charged Under UAPA: 16
- Journalists Behind Bars for UAPA: 7
- Journalists on Bail on UAPA Charges: 8
- Journalists Charged but Not Arrested: 1
- Journalists Acquitted: 1
- Journalists Discharged: 1
Journalists Currently Facing Legal Action:
- Arrested, in Police Custody:
- Prabir Purkayastha, Editor, Newsclick – Arrested on 03.10.2023, New Delhi
- In Prison:
- Aasif Sultan, Reporter, Kashmir Narrator – Arrested on 27.08.2018; Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir
- Fahad Shah, Editor, The Kashmirwalla – Arrested on 04.02.2022; Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir
- Sajjad Gul, Trainee Reporter, The Kashmir Walla – Arrested on 05.01.2022; Bandipora district, Jammu and Kashmir
- Rupesh Kumar, Independent Journalist – Arrested on 17.07.2022; Ramgarh district, Jharkhand
- Irfan Mehraj, Editor, Wande Magazine – Arrested on 21.03.2023; Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir
- Under House Arrest:
- Gautam Navlakha, Writer and Consulting Editor, Newsclick – Placed under house arrest on 30.08.2018; Surrendered and jailed on 20.04.2020; Reverted to house arrest on 19.11.2022
- On Bail (by Order of Arrest Date):
- Seema Azad, Editor Dastak, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh – Arrested in February 2010; Granted bail in August 2012; Raided on 06.09.2023
- Vishwa Vijay, Editor Dastak, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh – Arrested in February 2010; Granted bail in August 2012; Raided on 06.09.2023
- K K Shahina, Journalist Outlook – Case lodged in December 2010; Granted anticipatory bail in July 2011
- Siddique Kappan, Journalist, Azhimukham, Delhi – Arrested on 05.10.2020; Granted bail in UAPA case on 09.09.2023 and PMLA case on 23.12.2022
- Paojel Chaoba, Executive Editor, The Frontier Manipur, Imphal – Arrested on 17.01.2021; Granted bail on 18.01.2021
- Dhiren Sadokpam, Editor, The Frontier Manipur, Imphal – Arrested on 17.01.2021; Granted bail on 18.01.2021
- Shyam Meera Singh, Independent Journalist, New Delhi – Charged on 10.11.2021; Anticipatory bail granted on 18.11.2021
- Manan Dar, Photojournalist, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir – Arrested on 22.10.2021; Secured bail on 04.01.2023
- Charged but Not Arrested:
- Masrat Zahra, Photojournalist, Srinagar – Case registered on 18.04.2020
- Acquitted:
- Santosh Yadav, Bastar, Chhattisgarh – Arrested in September 2015; Acquitted on 02.01.2020
- Discharged:
- Kamran Yousuf, Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir – Arrested in September 2017; Secured discharge on 16.03.2022
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court declares child marriages violate basic rights, urges Parliament to act
New Delhi, October 18, 2024: The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that child betrothals—a tactic often used to evade the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA)—violate fundamental rights, including freedom of choice, autonomy, and the right to childhood.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that the anti-child marriage law was unclear on child betrothals. The Court urged Parliament to outlaw the practice and categorize children whose marriages are arranged as “minors in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The judgment noted that despite international frameworks like the 1977 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), India has not fully addressed the issue of child betrothals. Under the PCMA, girls under 18 and boys below 21 are considered children, and child marriage is both a crime and a social evil.
Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that confusion persists regarding the intersection of personal laws and the PCMA. The Court acknowledged that the government had submitted a “note” suggesting that the PCMA should take precedence over personal laws, citing conflicting High Court judgments. However, the note was not backed by formal documentation, and the matter remains unresolved, with an Amendment Bill introduced in December 2021 still pending in Parliament.
The Court also broke new ground by addressing the impact of child marriage on boys. The judgment highlighted how patriarchal expectations, misinformation, and peer pressure push boys into committing violence against their child brides. “While girls are disproportionately affected, the right to childhood belongs to all genders,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed.
“The intent of POCSO is to protect children from sexual harm, while child marriage institutionalizes sexual abuse by subjecting minor girls to exploitation,” the CJI stated. He further noted that child marriage reduces children to objects, imposing burdens such as compulsory heterosexuality and reproductive expectations, which deny them the freedom to explore their sexuality and personal choices.
The Court issued several guidelines, including:
• Introducing culturally appropriate sexuality education in schools.
• Launching a ‘Child Marriage Free Village’ campaign, similar to the ‘Open Defecation Free Village’ initiative, with the involvement of community leaders.
• Establishing an online portal under the Home Ministry for reporting child marriages.
• Creating a compensation scheme under the Ministry of Women and Child Development for girls who opt out of child marriages.
• Allocating an annual budget to prevent child marriages and support those affected by the practice.
The verdict was delivered in response to petitions by NGOs, including the Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, which raised concerns about the persistence of child marriages despite nearly two decades of the PCMA. The Court warned that child marriage poses a direct threat to laws like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
