ASSIGNMENT FOR VSP LEGALS

Well, I believe , it is very important to protect a journalists’ sources as it is an essential

element of freedom of expression. It is the sole feeder to the media that routinely depend
on contacts for the supply of information on issues of public interest. Operatives
sometimes come forward with secret or sensitive information, relying upon the reporter to
convey it to a wide audience in order to stimulate public debate. In many instances,
anonymity is the precondition upon which the information is conveyed from the source to
the journalist; this may be motivated by fear of repercussions which might adversely
affect the source’s physical safety or job security. Journalists would never be able to gain
access to places and situations where they can report on matters of general concern if
they cannot give a strong and genuine undertaking of confidentiality
The principle has also been repeatedly recognised by the European Court of Human
Rights .
The right of journalists to protect their sources is part of the freedom to “receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities" protected by
Article 10 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] and serves as one of its
important safeguards. It is a cornerstone of freedom of the press, without which sources
may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public
interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and
the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information to the public may be
adversely affected.
A clear indicator of the recognition of the importance of this right is that over 100
countries around the world have adopted laws on source protection.
There are three distinct interests which have been classified as relating to the information
to be protected in source legislation, in various laws and court cases: (a) materials
relating to the source of information or that could identify them; (b) unpublished
journalistic material; and (c) the obligation of journalists to testify or give evidence
relating to their professional activities. The latter two interests have traditionally received
less attention and less protection than the first. ARTICLE 19 believes that all three should
be recognised in any system of source protection.
In 2003, Satyendra Dubey, an Indian Engineering Service officer, exposed corruption in
the Golden Quadrilateral highway construction project in an anonymous letter to the then
Prime Minister Narsimha Rao. He attached his bio data with the letter so that the matter
would be taken seriously. Dubey’s name was leaked and he was later murdered. This case
was widely covered by the media and made evident the danger to the lives of
whistleblowers. Two years later, Shanmugam Manjunath, a manager for the Indian Oil
Corporation sealed a petrol pump in Uttar Pradesh as it was selling adulterated fuel. After
a month, the pump resumed operations. Manjunath conducted a surprise check. He was
murdered and the pump’s owner was later found guilty of the crime. Journalists,
therefore, many a time consider granting anonymity to protect the source (Keller, 2008;
Eisenach, 2011). Under certain circumstances, for example, when questions about the
authenticity of information are raised, journalists may be pressurised to reveal their
sources. But they have the right to protect them. It is in fact, their privilege.
The freedom of the press is never absolute, the journalist can be pressurised to break the
confidentiality agreement with his source. Several journalists have also gone to jail as
they refused to reveal their sources. Kaliprasanna Kavyabisliarad, Editor of the Hitzibadi,
and Pepin Chandra Pall were both imprisoned. The courts have in several cases known to
favour journalists. In 1997, The Delhi High Court ruled against disclosure of sources in a
case of contempt against, The Pioneer newspaper after it published an article that stated,
“...the judiciary was hindering the fight against the construction mafia by issuing stay and
status-quo orders.”
The Indian law does not recognise journalistic privilege. There is little protection for
sources in India. Sharma et al. (2009) argue that decisions regarding disclosure are
largely left to the courts . The Evidence Act, 1872 grants immunity to public officers,
magistrates, revenue officers, lawyers from disclosing confidential communication. There
is however, no such provision for journalists. In its 93rd report, the Law Commission of
India (1983) suggested the addition of Section 132A to the Indian Evidence Act. It read as
follows: No court shall require a person to disclose the source of information contained in
a publication for which he is responsible, where such information has been obtained by
him on the express agreement or implied understanding that the source will be kept
confidential. (p. 34) Later, in its 185th report (2003), the Commission recommended the
inclusion of Section 132A as follows: No Court shall require a person to disclose the
source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it is
established to the satisfaction of the Court that such disclosure is necessary in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to Contempt
of Court or incitement to any offence.