The recent summoning of journalists in Srinagar without formal notices or FIRs raises serious concerns about the chilling effect on press freedom in the region
Can good governance tread the line while due process hangs precariously by a thread? The recent episode of institutional heckling of journalists in Jammu and Kashmir compels us to confront this question.
On January 13, leading newspapers reported that security agencies in Jammu and Kashmir had commenced an extensive verification exercise concerning mosques across the Valley. As reported, J&K police circulated four-page proformas seeking information of an exceptionally granular nature.
Counterview: Kashmir will not be weakened by narrative terrorism
The inquiry extended beyond institutional particulars such as sect affiliation, construction costs, funding sources, and monthly budgets to encompass personal, financial, and digital identifiers of imams, muezzins, members of mosque management committees, and associated functionaries.
The data reportedly sought included Aadhaar numbers, voter identification, passport details, foreign travel histories, bank account particulars, PAN numbers, mobile phone models and IMEI numbers, social media identifiers, family details, and income-expenditure disclosures.
Justification of inquiries
The stated justification for this exercise was the November 2025 arrest of a Shopian-based maulana allegedly linked to a “white-collar terror module” uncovered during investigations following the Delhi blast. Preventive verification of institutions in response to security concerns does not, in itself, offend constitutional principles. The difficulty arises from what followed.
Also read: After medical institute, law varsity caught in BJP’s divisive J-K politics
Beginning January 14, journalists based in Srinagar and employed by national newspapers were summoned to the Cyber Police Station. The process by which these summons were issued was marked by a notable absence of procedural formality. Several journalists received only oral directions to appear, without written notice or disclosure of purpose.
Others were questioned for extended periods regarding routine reportage grounded in publicly observable official action. At least one journalist was required to appear on multiple consecutive days and was asked to execute a bond undertaking not to “repeat the mistake”, without specification of the alleged infraction. In certain instances, journalists were informed that the reasons for their summons would be communicated only after their appearance.
Absence of safeguards
What bears emphasis is not merely the actions taken, but the safeguards that were absent. No first information report (FIR) was registered. No formal allegation of false reporting, defamation, or statutory violation was conveyed. No written order identified the legal provision under which the journalists were summoned, or bonds demanded.
Also read: How life has altered for residents of Kashmir villages living with the threat of wildlife attack
Even subsequently, no public clarification was offered regarding the statutory basis of these measures.
These omissions are constitutionally material. Due process under Article 21 is not limited to protection against arrest or detention. It governs every exercise of state power that compels attendance, demands cooperation, or imposes restraint. The constitutional mandate is straightforward: all such procedures must be fair, just, and reasonable.
When an oral summons is issued without reasons, the police compel repeated appearances without clarity of legal status, and coercive undertakings are extracted without statutory authority — all bona fide procedures stand violated.
Even in the absence of formal prosecution, procedure itself can assume a punitive character. Repeated summons, prolonged uncertainty about one’s legal position, and pressure to comply with undefined obligations predictably alter behaviour.
Doctrine of chilling effect
The Constitution recognises this harm as the doctrine of the chilling effect, wherein lawful expression is not deterred by express prohibition but by the burdens imposed by state action. It is precisely at this juncture that the role of the press becomes salient.
Journalism, particularly print journalism, plays a foundational role in democratic governance.
Also read: Harinder Baweja on conflict reporting, Kashmir’s wounds, and India’s old and new fault lines
By documenting state action, placing official justifications in the public domain, and enabling public scrutiny, it helps restrain executive power. Thus, when the state responds to even routine reporting with coercive force, it signals that the boundary between lawful investigation and informal intimidation has been breached.
In the context of J&K
This concern assumes particular gravity in Jammu and Kashmir, a region long subject to heightened security governance. Contexts such as the J&K require enhanced procedural safeguards — not the ones that are diluted, because it is in exceptional circumstances that constitutional safeguards are tested.
So, while security considerations are real, a state confident in the legality of its actions should not respond to accurate reporting with summons and silence orders.
Erroneous reporting, if any, must be addressed through the law. Ambiguity and coercion have no place in constitutional governance.
Also read: White-collar terror probe: Doctors radicalised via social media since 2019
After all, good governance is measured not by administrative efficiency alone, but by fidelity to due process. Written summons, stated reasons, identifiable statutory authority, and reviewable procedures are not privileges extended to the press; they are constitutional obligations binding upon the State.
Within a constitutional order, it is incumbent that justice must not only be done, but it must also appear to be done — through procedures that are transparent, well-reasoned, and subject to review.
Until the police's engagement with journalists is governed by rules rather than arbitrary discretion, the result will render our democratic foundation too fragile to rest upon. Until then, the precarity of the fourth pillar shall persist.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
