Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →India’s press-freedom environment deteriorated materially between Narendra Modi’s arrival as prime minister in May 2014 and June 2024. The change was not one censorship statute. It was the accumulation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) prosecutions, restrictive bail rules, prolonged pretrial detention, internet shutdowns, opaque content blocking, surveillance concerns, and economic and reputational pressure on newsrooms. Courts have sometimes imposed important limits, but journalists can lose their liberty, tools and audience long before a case reaches trial.
What changed after 2014
Article 19(1)(a) of India’s Constitution protects speech and expression, subject to Article 19(2) restrictions for interests including security of the state, public order, decency, defamation and incitement. Those limits predate Modi. Journalists have long faced criminal defamation, hate-speech provisions, contempt powers, preventive detention and the UAPA. Sedition proceedings were put on hold for new cases by the Supreme Court in 2022 while the provision is reconsidered.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
During Modi’s decade, however, national-security law and digital administration became more tightly connected to journalism. The 2019 UAPA amendment allowed the Union government to designate individuals, as well as organisations, as terrorists. The 2021 Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules imposed new duties on platforms and brought digital news publishers into a government-administered code and grievance system. Blocking orders, account restrictions, raids and shutdowns increasingly operated alongside criminal investigations.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallResponsibility differs by case. The Union government, the National Investigation Agency, Delhi Police, state police forces and local administrations do not have identical powers. A decade-long assessment must therefore distinguish federal policy from state enforcement rather than treating every action as a personal order from Modi.
#1 Best Overall
Why UAPA cases create a press-freedom risk
Enacted in 1967 and repeatedly amended, the UAPA is India’s principal counterterror and anti-unlawful-activities statute. Allegations may concern support, propaganda, conspiracy, association or financing. Section 43D(5) sets an unusually demanding bail standard: a court must be satisfied that the accusation is not prima facie true before granting bail. Investigation and custody periods can also exceed those available in ordinary criminal cases.
For a journalist, the practical punishment can arrive before guilt is decided. Years in detention, seized devices, restricted travel, legal bills and reputational damage can end reporting even if a court later grants bail or finds a procedural defect. Security evidence may be difficult for the accused, the public and other journalists to scrutinise.
The government argues that reporting can overlap with separatist propaganda, extremist networks, foreign influence or incitement, and that investigators must be able to pursue funding and communications linked to wider conspiracies. That rationale can be legitimate in an individual case. The press-freedom question is whether arrest is necessary, evidence is disclosed fairly, detention is proportionate and the conduct charged is genuinely criminal rather than merely critical reporting or association.
Cases that show how the system works
Siddique Kappan: arrest while travelling to report
Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan was arrested in October 2020 while travelling to Uttar Pradesh to report on the Hathras rape and murder case. Police charged him under the UAPA and other provisions, alleging links to extremist activity. He spent nearly two years in custody before the Supreme Court granted bail in 2022. The case illustrates how ordinary reporting travel can be recast by investigators as evidence of conspiracy. An arrest is not a conviction, and the government’s allegations must be distinguished from the court’s bail decision. The Committee to Protect Journalists’ rights guide notes that harsh criticism of government can fall within protected expression: CPJ journalist-rights guide.
Rank #2
Aasif Sultan: Kashmir’s prolonged detention
Kashmiri journalist Aasif Sultan was arrested in 2018 under UAPA-related allegations involving alleged support for militants. CPJ described him in 2024 as Kashmir’s longest-imprisoned journalist at that time; RSF later reported his release after more than five years in custody. Release is not the same as acquittal or the quashing of proceedings. His case demonstrates how security-law detention can remove a local reporter from public life for years before the underlying allegations are finally tested.
Gautam Navlakha: house arrest as a reporting constraint
Journalist and columnist Gautam Navlakha was arrested in 2020 in the Bhima Koregaon case and charged under the UAPA. He was later held under house arrest with strict limits on communications, visitors and internet access. House arrest is not a conventional prison, but for a journalist it can still prevent interviewing, publishing, receiving documents and maintaining confidential contacts. CPJ’s case file records the restrictions: Gautam Navlakha case file.
Prabir Purkayastha and NewsClick: raids followed by procedural relief
NewsClick founder and editor Prabir Purkayastha was arrested in October 2023 under the UAPA after police raids involving the outlet and journalists associated with it. Authorities alleged foreign funding and Chinese influence; NewsClick and its supporters disputed those accusations. In May 2024, the Supreme Court ordered his release after finding the arrest and remand procedurally invalid because written grounds of arrest had not been supplied before remand. The ruling was a significant safeguard, but it was not a final finding that every underlying allegation was false. The judgment is available at the Supreme Court.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Irfan Mehraj: detention and access to evidence
Kashmiri journalist and editor Irfan Mehraj was arrested by the National Investigation Agency in March 2023 under UAPA-related allegations. RSF reported in 2025 that he remained in pretrial detention for years while his defence faced delays obtaining evidence and heavily redacted witness statements. This case highlights a less visible form of suppression: the inability to prepare a defence, resume reporting or know when a trial will meaningfully begin. RSF’s account is at RSF’s Mehraj report.
Kashmir: censorship by disabling reporting conditions
Kashmir is the clearest example of overlapping controls. After the August 2019 removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status, authorities imposed security restrictions, preventive detention and prolonged communications disruptions. Reporters also faced accreditation pressure, website and account blocking, raids, surveillance concerns and UAPA cases.
Formal censorship is only part of the effect. A journalist who cannot move freely, call a source, upload footage, verify a document or reach an editor is effectively prevented from reporting even without a published ban. RSF describes a marked deterioration after 2019, including detention, shutdowns and security-law prosecutions: RSF on Kashmir and Mehraj.
The digital-control architecture
IT Rules, 2021
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 require intermediary due diligence, grievance officers and additional compliance by significant social-media services. They also place digital news publishers and streaming services inside a government-administered code-of-ethics and grievance framework, with provisions affecting traceability and platform compliance. The text is available through India Code and MeitY’s updated rules PDF. Courts have stayed or reviewed parts of challenges, but the framework remains central to government-platform disputes.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThe 2023 fact-checking-unit dispute
A 2023 amendment authorised a government fact-checking mechanism for information concerning government business. Critics argued that the state would become judge of claims about itself, encouraging platforms to remove lawful reporting to preserve liability protection. The Bombay High Court struck down the amendment in 2024 on free-speech and statutory-authority grounds, according to Human Rights Watch. That ruling concerned the amendment, not the entire IT Rules framework, and later litigation can affect its status. See Human Rights Watch’s India chapter.
Blocking, takedowns and opaque pressure
Different mechanisms produce different legal consequences:
- A platform may remove material under its own terms.
- A ministry may issue a statutory notice or blocking direction under the IT Act.
- A court may order removal or disclosure.
- An account may be withheld in India while remaining visible elsewhere.
Without a published order, users may not know who acted, under which authority or how to appeal. Informal requests can produce the same practical result as a formal censorship order while leaving less of a public record.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Shutdowns and surveillance
Freedom House reports that India led the world in internet shutdowns for five consecutive years. Civil-society tracker figures reproduced in its 2024 assessment recorded 132 shutdowns in 2020, 100 in 2021, 77 in 2022, 96 in 2023 and 42 through September 2024. These are tracker totals compiled from official orders, news reports, right-to-information requests and other evidence; India has no comprehensive official national database. Source: Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2024.
For journalists, a blackout can mean no filing, livestreaming, cloud access, encrypted messaging or rapid source verification. Local and freelance reporters, who have fewer alternative connections and less institutional support, bear the greatest burden. In Anuradha Bhasin, the Supreme Court held that speech and the freedom to conduct trade or business over the internet are constitutionally protected, and required shutdown orders to be published and open to judicial review. RSF’s practical guide explains the reporting risks: RSF shutdowns guide.
Best Value
Surveillance is another distinct strand. The Central Monitoring System, NETRA and NATGRID have been discussed in public litigation and reporting. The government says agencies do not have blanket permission and that interception tools are needed against terrorism, radicalisation, cybercrime and organised crime. A 2021 Pegasus investigation reported likely targeting of more than 300 prominent people, including journalists and activists; that finding did not establish that the Indian government infected every identified device. Apple notifications in 2024 warned Indian users about possible mercenary-spyware attacks. Freedom House records the government’s denial of blanket surveillance authority and continuing litigation: Freedom House’s surveillance assessment.
Pressure beyond criminal law
Arrests and shutdowns are the most visible controls, but newsroom decisions are also shaped by concentrated ownership, corporate relationships with political power, government advertising, tax and foreign-funding investigations, online abuse and campaigns labelling reporters “anti-national,” “fake” or foreign-backed. These pressures are harder to count than prosecutions but can encourage self-censorship without a formal ban.
RSF reported that India fell 21 places between 2014 and 2023, to 161st of 180 countries in its 2023 index, citing violence, concentrated ownership and overt political alignment. Reuters Institute’s 2024 and 2025 India reports describe concern about ownership concentration, regulatory pressure and the growth of digital outlets as alternatives to mainstream narratives. Rankings use different methodologies; they are context, not judicial findings. See RSF’s country assessment and Reuters Institute 2025.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The government’s case and the unresolved test
Indian authorities say counterterror investigations protect citizens from violence, separatism, foreign interference, unlawful financing and communal misinformation. They argue that platforms need accountability, that rapid takedowns can prevent harm and that shutdowns may stop coordinated violence or dangerous rumours. Platforms also make independent moderation decisions, so not every disappearance online is state censorship.
The unresolved test is proportionality and due process: whether laws are narrowly applied; whether written grounds and evidence reach the accused promptly; whether detention is necessary; whether restrictions target unlawful conduct rather than criticism or association; and whether readers can see who ordered a removal. Courts have shown that safeguards matter, through Kappan’s bail, the Anuradha Bhasin transparency requirements, Purkayastha’s procedural release and the Bombay High Court’s fact-checking-unit ruling. Those interventions show neither an unchecked crackdown nor a restored free press. They show a system in which constitutional rights may survive in court while reporting is constrained first by arrest, blackout, raid, surveillance concern or platform removal.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
