The Delhi High Court, while hearing a bail application in a case involving an alleged assault on two freelance YouTube reporters, made a series of observations concerning the state of media practice in the country. Justice Girish Kathpalia presided over the matter and emphasized that the freedom of the press, although an indispensable pillar of democracy, does not extend to protect journalism that is irresponsible, intimidating or that threatens public order.
The Court noted that the proliferation of social media and digital platforms has enabled virtually anyone equipped with a mobile phone and a microphone to proclaim themselves a reporter. Such individuals often lack formal journalistic training, ethical grounding or any mechanism of accountability. The judge described this phenomenon as the emergence of “self‑styled reporters” who frequently thrust microphones at citizens and demand immediate responses.
When a person chooses to remain silent or declines to comment—a right guaranteed to every citizen—these self‑styled reporters often turn to the camera and declare that the individual is evading questions. The Court observed that this conduct creates a misleading public narrative and exerts unwarranted pressure on individuals.
Furthermore, the Court expressed concern over the tendency of certain media actors to target or malign specific social groups through selective reporting, sensationalism or unverified allegations. Such behaviour, according to the bench, has the potential to deepen social divisions, inflame passions and, at times, trigger communal disharmony or public disorder.
Justice Kathpalia stressed that with the power to shape public opinion comes an attendant duty to exercise restraint, fairness and responsibility. While reiterating that press freedom must be zealously protected, the Court held that it cannot become a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation or the dissemination of content that jeopardises public order.
The observations were made in the context of granting regular bail to two accused who were charged in connection with the alleged assault on the two freelance YouTube reporters. The prosecution alleged that on 4 July 2025 the complainant and his colleague, who identified themselves as media persons, were recording videos in an unauthorised colony in the Seemapuri area when they were attacked by a mob. The mob allegedly chased them into a bus, continued the assault, damaged their motorcycle and snatched their belongings.
The Court acknowledged that the attack could not be justified but noted that the complainants were not affiliated with any accredited news organisation and were freelancing for a YouTube channel. This factual matrix prompted the bench to call for a broader examination of the issue beyond the immediate criminal proceedings.
In addition to its remarks on media conduct, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the police’s handling of the bail proceedings. It observed that the investigating agency had failed to effectively assist the Court. Despite repeated directions, the Investigating Officer was on leave, the Station House Officer had not appeared personally with the case record and had opted to send a Sub‑Inspector who was unaware of the complete facts of the case.
The judge remarked that it was on such inadequate material that the accused had remained in jail for almost one year while the trial had yet to commence. The Court added that the lackadaisical approach of the police in contesting the bail applications meant that the accused could not be kept in jail endlessly.
Justice Kathpalia also acknowledged the ongoing lawyers’ strike but clarified that neither the judiciary nor the police could be considered on strike. He noted that, despite the strike, some lawyers and all learned prosecutors attached to the Court continued to perform their duties.
The bench concluded by urging the legislature to consider an appropriate regulatory framework that preserves freedom of the press while ensuring professional accountability, ethical standards and respect for the rule of law, the rights of citizens and the larger public interest. The observations are recorded in the judgment cited as [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 659].