The Delhi High Court has observed that while freedom of the press is an indispensable pillar of democracy, it cannot be used as a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation or dissemination of content that jeopardises public order.

Justice Girish Kathpalia said that with the proliferation of social media, virtually anyone armed with a mobile phone and microphone now claims to be a “reporter”, often without journalistic training, ethical grounding or accountability.

“The time has come for the legislature to consider an appropriate regulatory framework that preserves freedom of press, while ensuring professional accountability, ethical standards, and respect for the rule of law, the rights of citizens and the larger public interest,” the Court said.

It made the observations while granting regular bail to two accused booked in connection with the alleged assault on two freelance YouTube reporters who were recording videos in an unauthorised colony in city's Seemapuri area.

The Court said that while freedom of press is an indispensable pillar of every democratic society, but in recent years, with rapid proliferation of social media and digital platforms, a significant section of the media has become largely unregulated and unorganized.

“Today, virtually anyone armed with a mobile phone and a microphone can proclaim themselves to be a “reporter”, often without any journalistic training, ethical grounding, or accountability,” the Court said.

It emphasised that it has become increasingly common for such “self styled reporters” to aggressively thrust microphones at citizens, demanding instant responses.

The Court said when a person chooses to remain silent or refuses to comment, which is a right of every citizen, the “so called reporter” often turns to the camera and declares that the individual is evading questions.

Such conduct, the judge said, creates misleading public narrative and generates unwarranted public pressure.

“Equally disturbing is the tendency of some media actors to target or malign a particular social group through selective reporting, sensationalism or unverified allegations. Such conduct has the potential to deepen social divisions, inflame passions and, at times, even trigger communal disharmony or public disorder,” the Court said.

Justice Kathpalia said that media must recognize that with the power to shape public opinion comes an implicit attendant duty to exercise restraint, fairness and responsibility.

“Of course, the freedom of press must remain zealously protected. But, it cannot become a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation or the dissemination of content that jeopardizes public order,” the Court emphasised.

The prosecution alleged that on July 4, 2025, the complainant and his colleague, who identified themselves as media persons, were recording videos in an unauthorised colony when they were assaulted by a mob.

According to the prosecution, the mob chased them into a bus and continued the assault, besides damaging their motorcycle and snatching their belongings.

During the hearing, the prosecution argued that the attack amounted to an assault on the freedom of the press.

However, the Court noted that the complainant and his colleague were not associated with any accredited news organisation and were freelancing for a YouTube channel.

It also observed that while the said situation did not justify the attack, the issue required a broader examination.

The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the police's handling of the bail proceedings, observing that the investigating agency had failed to effectively assist the Court.

The Court said that despite repeated directions, the Investigating Officer was on leave, the SHO had not appeared personally with record and had opted to just send an SI who was not aware about complete facts of this case.

“It is on such material that the accused/applicants are languishing in jail for past almost one year and trial is yet to commence. And to add to it is the abovementioned lackadaisical approach of police in contesting these bail applications. The accused/applicants cannot be kept in jail endlessly,” the judge said.

Justice Kathpalia said that while he was conscious that lawyers were on strike, but neither the judges nor the police were (nor can be) on strike.

“Even as regards lawyers, despite being on strike, some of the lawyers and all learned prosecutors attached with this Court, keeping in mind the liberty of citizens, have kindly appeared through videoconferencing. Such failure on the part of investigating agency to effectively assist the court even in bail matters is not acceptable,” the Court said.

The judge granted bail to the accused and clarified that the observations were recorded keeping in mind the limited purpose of grant or denial of bail.

Title: ABID ALI @ AABI v. State & other connected matter

Click here to read order