Freedom of press cannot be a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation and jeopardizing public order, the Delhi High Court observed on July 16..Justice Girish Kathpalia also lamented that anybody with a mobile phone call themselves journalists today without any accountability.“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 observed.Therefore, the Court called for a legal framework to regulate media without compromising on freedom of press.“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 stated..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.Delhi High Court .The Court was hearing a bail plea filed by two persons accused of assaulting two freelance YouTube reporters when they were recording a video concerning an allegedly illegally constructed place of worship..The incident occurred in July 2025 when the two media reporters were assaulted by a mob while recording a video about an illegally constructed place of worship in Seemapuri. The prosecution claimed that the members of a mob had snatched the reporters’ camera battery and mobile phones.Two persons, Abid Ali and Fukran, were found to be members of the mob and were arrested. They then moved the Court for bail.Ali alleged that he was merely a bystander while Fukran stated that he was not present at the place of the incident..The Court observed that the press members had apparently agitated the local residents while making videos for their news report..The Court stated that “self styled reporters” sometimes tend to aggressively question their news subjects and create misleading narrative.The Court also proceeded to make observations regarding the dangers of selective reporting, sensationalism and publishing unverified allegations.“Such conduct has the potential to deepen social divisions, inflame passions and, at times, even trigger communal disharmony or public disorder. The media must recognize that with the power to shape public opinion comes an implicit attendant duty to exercise restraint, fairness and responsibility,” the Court said..In order to regulate press reporting, the Court highlighted the need for the formulation of a framework.“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 time has come for the legislature to consider an appropriate regulatory framework that preserves freedom of press, while ensuring professional accountability.Delhi High Court .While granting bail to the accused persons, Justice Kathpalia also noted that the investigating officer had made a false claim before court that the accused persons were caught on a video footage of the incident and were seen committing assault.Further, the Court took exception to the non-appearance of the investigating office to explain the contradiction. It stated that even though the lawyers are on strike, judges and police cannot also be on strike.“I am conscious that lawyers are on strike. But neither the judges nor the police are (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 judge said.Accordingly, the two accused persons were released on bail.Advocate Ankit Tandan appeared for accused Abid Ali.Advocate Abdul Gaffar appeared for accused Fukran.Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal represented the State.[Read Judgment]
