New Delhi [India], July 16 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that while the freedom of the press is an indispensable pillar of a democratic society, it cannot be used as a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation, or dissemination of content that jeopardises public order.
The Court further said the time has come for the legislature to consider an appropriate regulatory framework to preserve press freedom while ensuring professional accountability and ethical standards.
Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while granting regular bail to Abid Ali and Furkan, who have been in custody since July 5, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered at Seemapuri police station over the alleged assault on two freelance YouTube reporters.
The Court observed that with the rapid proliferation of social media and digital platforms, a significant section of the media has become largely unregulated and unorganised.
"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.
The Court further noted that it has become increasingly common for self-styled reporters to aggressively thrust microphones at citizens seeking instant responses and, if a person chooses to remain silent, portray such silence as an attempt to evade questions, thereby creating a misleading public narrative.
Justice Kathpalia also cautioned against selective reporting and sensationalism, observing that some media actors target or malign particular social groups through unverified allegations, which have the potential to deepen social divisions, inflame passions and even trigger communal disharmony or public disorder.
The Court stressed that with the power to shape public opinion comes a corresponding duty to exercise restraint, fairness and responsibility.
At the same time, the Court emphasised that freedom of the press must remain zealously protected but cannot justify irresponsible journalism or intimidation.
It said the legislature should consider framing an appropriate regulatory framework that balances press freedom with accountability, ethical standards, citizens' rights and the larger public interest.
The case relates to an incident on July 4, 2025, when two persons claiming to be "from media" were recording videos in an unauthorised colony in Seemapuri.
According to the prosecution, they were allegedly assaulted by a mob, who also snatched a camera battery and mobile phone and damaged their motorcycle. The FIR was registered the following day under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
While considering the bail applications, the High Court expressed serious displeasure over the conduct of the investigating agency.
It observed that despite repeated directions, neither the Investigating Officer nor the SHO effectively assisted the Court. Justice Kathpalia remarked that while lawyers may be on strike, "neither the judges nor the police are (nor can be) on strike," adding that such failure by the investigating agency to assist the Court in bail matters was unacceptable.
The Court also found inconsistencies in the prosecution case. It noted that the Investigating Officer had earlier claimed that Abid Ali entered the bus and assaulted the complainants, but upon replaying the video in court, that claim appeared to be incorrect.
The Court further observed that the prosecution itself was uncertain about the identity of Furkan, having described him as wearing a white shirt before the Sessions Court while the chargesheet identified him as wearing a brown T-shirt.
The Court remarked that despite these inconsistencies, the applicants had remained in custody for almost a year, while the trial had not even commenced.
It also observed that four co-accused had already been granted bail and held that the applicants could not be kept behind bars indefinitely.
While acknowledging the prosecution's argument that the assault amounted to an attack on the freedom of the press, the Court noted that the complainants were not affiliated with any accredited media organisation and were freelancing for a YouTube channel.
It added that although the complainants had apparently not informed the local police before undertaking the recording exercise, that could never justify an attack by local residents.
Clarifying that its observations were confined to deciding the bail applications, the Court said the trial court would independently decide the case on the basis of evidence led during trial without being influenced by the present observations.