India has the largest democratic system on the planet. While democracy depends on free access to information, diverse opinions, and brave investigative journalists who push the powerful without reprisal. A free press enables questioning of governments, exposure of corruption, and an understanding of the world.
However, recent signs indicate that press freedom in India is increasingly under threat — not just by way of more overt censorship but also, less obviously perhaps, through the use of law to chill reporting critical of powerful interests. India has dropped six places from its position in the previous year (151) of the 2025 World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) for 180 countries, based on data published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
This indicator indicates a “very serious” concern over independent journalism in India. What is more alarming is the order in which the ranking has changed: it went from 159th in 2024 to 151st in 2025, and is now at 157th in 2026. This trend suggests that media freedom has long-standing structural problems with media freedom.
Press freedom is not only at risk when governments ban newspapers or block television channels. In the modern world, restrictions are often subtle. Lawsuits are one way to enforce restrictions. Defamation laws, criminal complaints, national security laws, and extended legal battles put journalists and media companies under enormous pressure. And even if they are not actually charged with any crime, the process can serve as a punishment.
The purpose of a defamation law is to protect a journalist’s reputation and avoid false accusations. Although the law has a role in this process, some critics say it can be used to create fear in newsrooms if complaints are filed repeatedly against journalists investigating powerful persons or institutions. An actual lawsuit will take a lot of money, time, lawyers, court appearances, and effort - not to mention an emotional investment as well. The most pressure comes on small independent media outlets, as they lack the resources of large teams of lawyers and are buoyed by deep pockets.
Legal pressure can have a chilling effect on journalists. Journalists may not choose to report difficult stories because it’s the wrong story, but because it presents too big a risk to them. Editors may deny investigative work targeting political leaders or major corporations. Reporters may choose to hide and not be investigated.
In the 2026 RSF report, the report also cited increasing legal harassment as a concern. Laws were increasingly abused to silence independent journalism. India was one of the countries where the judiciary exerted heavy pressure on news agencies. Criminal laws such as defamation and national security laws were increasingly used against journalists.
The most severe fall in this index was in the legal category, revealing that more than 60% of countries saw worsening legal situations for journalism in 2013. India is one of these countries. The decline is not isolated, but part of an overall concern with the criminalisation of journalism.
The environment around the media also contributes to the concerns. RSF cited concentrated ownership of media and more political alignment within news organisations. Concentrated media ownership among a small number of powerful interests raises alarms about diversity and independence in journalism.
It is harder to sustain independent journalism.
Journalists in India face pressure beyond the courtroom. Online harassment, intimidation, threats, and public targeting add another layer of pressure. Reporters covering sensitive issues may be harassed both at work and at home. Women journalists often suffer from harassment online.
Journalists should not be held liable. Reporting has to be responsible, and false reporting has to be corrected. Ethical standards have to be maintained. Accountability becomes problematic when legal systems create situations in which fear drives the reporting process.
Democracies rest on uncomfortable questions. Investigative journalism makes governments, corporations, and big institutions feel uneasy. They expose corruption, question policies, scrutinise decisions, and challenge official narratives. However, when legal responsibility looms over their labours, they struggle to play this part.
Regionally, India is now 87th (119 out of 196 countries), Sri Lanka holds on to the 134th spot, Bhutan also retains its ranking at 150th, Bangladesh maintains the position with 152nd, and Pakistan remains in 153rd place in the index for the year 2026.
This was behind a number of its neighbours, which enjoy one of the largest media networks in the world.
Previous countries that have been attacked in international freedom rankings argued that the rankings were misleading or flawed. Indian officials say they are strong believers in democratic principles and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. Advocates claim that regulations can also guarantee national security and protect from harmful disinformation.
Patterns do. India’s rapid jump from 159th to 151st and back again to 157th over three years raises issues that cannot be mistaken for temporary fluctuations, but for ongoing structural pressures on independent journalism.
Defamation laws are not censorship, by themselves. But when those same legal mechanisms consistently discourage criticism and investigation, they may start producing the same result. Journalism does not disappear overnight. Sometimes it just quiets down.
Democracies do not grow stronger when journalists fear the consequences for asking difficult questions. Democracy grows stronger when truth-seeking is safe.
If journalists refrain from challenging powerful voices because the risks to the public outweigh the interests of the public, censorship no longer needs bans or blocked headlines.
Fear does the work instead.
References: