By Spotlight Investigation Desk
In regions marked by political sensitivity, power often operates not through explicit bans but through silence, suggestion, and ambiguity. Jammu and Kashmir has long been familiar with this quieter grammar of control. A recent disclosure obtained through the Right to Information Act has now punctured one such grey zone, placing a crucial truth on the official record. There is no legal authority to restrict journalists from doing their work.
The clarification came from the Department of Information and Public Relations, Kashmir, in response to an RTI application filed by the investigative branch of Spotlight. The request sought clarity after a departmental communication dated October 31, 2025 triggered widespread concern among independent and non accredited journalists. Many feared that new, informal restrictions on reporting were being quietly normalised.
What the RTI reply reveals is striking in its simplicity and in its implications.
In a written response, the Office of the Joint Director Information, Kashmir stated clearly:
“This office has not issued any such order or circular which restricts, prohibits or disallows journalists from discharging their professional duties.”
For a region where journalistic freedom has often been negotiated at checkpoints, and administrative offices rather than in courtrooms, the statement carries weight. It confirms that no formal order, circular, or legal provision exists that limits journalists from carrying out their work, regardless of whether they hold government accreditation.
Placed on official record, the reply dismantles the notion that journalism in Jammu and Kashmir is subject to any lawful ban or conditional permission regime.
Legal experts and media observers point out that the RTI response aligns squarely with constitutional law. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, a right the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to include the practice of journalism.
Any restriction on this right must be backed by law and fall within the limits defined under Article 19(2). Executive communications, advisories, or internal departmental notes do not meet this standard.
The RTI disclosure therefore reinforces a foundational principle often lost in practice. Journalism is not a privilege granted by the state but a right protected against it.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the reply is what it does not say.
Nowhere does the DIPR cite a statute, rule, or notification that makes accreditation a mandatory condition for reporting. This silence is significant. Media observers interpret it as confirmation that accreditation functions only as a facilitative mechanism, useful for access and identification, but legally irrelevant to the act of journalism itself.
Independent journalists in Kashmir have long argued that accreditation has been informally used at the ground level to discourage reporting or deny access, despite lacking any statutory authority. The RTI response lends credibility to these claims by implicitly acknowledging that accreditation carries no legal power to restrict journalistic work.
The department’s reply does refer to concerns about the misuse of journalistic identity. However, it stops short of explaining how such concerns translate into lawful oversight. No legal framework is cited. No statutory safeguards are outlined. No distinction is drawn between impersonation and legitimate reporting.
Experts warn that ambiguity itself can function as a form of control. When journalists are unsure where legality ends and administrative discretion begins, self censorship often fills the gap.
In such environments, freedom is rarely revoked outright. It is eroded quietly.
A Reference Point for Press Freedom
For independent journalists, the RTI disclosure is already being viewed as an important reference document. It can be cited when facing arbitrary interference or informal pressure. It establishes clearly that there is no legal basis to obstruct reporting.
