Press Sustained By Readers Best Placed To Be Independent; Corporate Media Dependent On State Patronage : Justice Nagarathna

Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Thursday said that a press sustained by its readers is best placed to remain independent, cautioning that corporate ownership structures often make media organisations vulnerable to State influence through economic patronage.

Delivering the keynote address at the International Press Institute (IPI) India Award for Excellence in Journalism 2025 ceremony at the Constitution Club in New Delhi, Justice Nagarathna stressed that independent journalism can survive only when supported directly by readers and civil society.

“A press sustained by its readers is always better placed to serve the public interest and fend off political pressures,” she said, calling independent reporting a public good worth supporting through subscriptions.

The civil society must recognise that independent reporting is a public good worth paying for. On the other hand, good journalism doesn't run on goodwill alone. When someone takes a subscription, they're really saying, this kind of reporting is worth backing. A press sustained by its readers is always better placed to serve the public interest and fend off political pressures.

Economic Pressures As Threat To Press Freedom

She warned that corporate-owned media may formally remain independent but could still be constrained by economic realities and political linkages.

“The press may be free from the State yet dependent on corporate power which may in turn be dependent on State patronage,” she observed.

Justice Nagarathna raised concerns that editorial independence could be affected by ownership interests and financial dependencies even in the absence of direct censorship.

Justice Nagarathna said the most serious threats to press freedom are likely to arise not from direct restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, but from economic and regulatory pressures justified under Article 19(6).

She noted that ownership rules, licensing laws, taxation policies, advertising regimes and antitrust regulations could indirectly shape editorial choices while maintaining formal constitutional compliance.

“The law may not silence the press, but it may shape the conditions under which speech is created,” she said.

She also highlighted the influence of government and public-sector advertising, observing that editors may internalise the risks of critical reporting where advertising revenue is at stake. A press outlet may be legally free to criticize the government, yet economically constrained in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable. She asked if press freedom depends on economic viability within competitive markets, can it truly be free? Will there then be a free and balanced press?

The most serious threats to press freedom are likely to arise not from direct censorship under Article 19(2), but from regulations justified under Article 19(6). Ownership rules, licensing laws, advertising policies, taxation and increasingly antitrust law may all be defended as economic regulation, even when they have profound effects on editorial independence. This allows the State to influence the press indirectly while maintaining formal compliance with Article 19(1)(a). In this way, freedom may exist in law, but may be weakened in practice.

Attempts to capture press has political underpinnings

Justice Nagarathna cautioned against the emergence of what she termed “selective journalism” and said attempts to capture the press often have both economic and political underpinnings.

A free press is not created by decree; it evolves through interaction between readers, writers, and editors. Attempts to perfect it through centralized control, whether political or bureaucratic undermines the very spontaneity that gives it vitality. The recent trend of attempts to capture the press not only has economic underpinnings but also political overtones.

She emphasised that press freedom cannot function under constraint, fear or influence, adding that centralized control undermines the vitality of independent media institutions.

Justice Nagarathna delivered the address while presenting the IPI India Award for Excellence in Journalism 2025 to Scroll.in reporter Vaishnavi Rathore for her ground report on the Great Nicobar Island Development Project.

She praised ground-level reporting as an essential public function that connects law and policy with lived realities, particularly in areas such as climate change and environmental governance.

Justice Nagarathna said journalists play a crucial role in translating constitutional values into public consciousness by reporting on issues such as environmental degradation and climate risks.

Justice Nagarathna said freedom of the press flows from the combined operation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, protecting both expression and the profession of journalism.

She emphasised that constitutional guarantees alone cannot sustain press freedom and that social support for independent journalism remains essential.

"In honouring journalism today, we therefore also honour a deeper constitutional value - freedom of the press that enables truth to reach the public and ensures that the interests of the future are not eclipsed by the conveniences of the present."