Introduction
In our last lesson, we examined the Bhima Koregaon case, focusing on how the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was applied to activists, leading to prolonged pre-trial detention and the tragic death of Stan Swamy in custody. We established how the legal process itself can become a form of punishment. Now, we turn our attention from activism to journalism, exploring a parallel and equally concerning trend.
This lesson directly addresses your interest in specific contemporary cases by using the arrests of journalists Siddique Kappan and Mohammed Zubair to illustrate the criminalization of dissent. We will analyze how journalistic work—be it on-the-ground reporting or online fact-checking—can be framed as a criminal or even terrorist act through the strategic use of specific laws. By dissecting these two high-profile cases, we will identify a pattern of legal and procedural tactics that pose significant challenges to press freedom in India.
The Case of Siddique Kappan: Reporting as Terrorism?
Our first case study is that of Siddique Kappan, a journalist from Kerala. His arrest and subsequent two-year-long incarceration epitomize the most severe forms of legal action against a journalist in recent times, directly invoking the anti-terror law we have studied, the UAPA.
In October 2020, Kappan was traveling to Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, to report on the horrific gang-rape and death of a 19-year-old Dalit woman—a story that had drawn national outrage. He was arrested before he could even reach his destination.
To understand the full scope of the case and the multi-pronged legal battle that ensued, please engage with the following detailed analysis.
The Siddique Kappan Case: How Freedom of Speech Got ...
This article from Lawctopus provides an excellent, structured breakdown of Kappan's case, from his arrest to the legal challenges and human rights concerns. It connects directly to our discussions on UAPA and procedural justice.
Please read the following sections to grasp the narrative, the charges, and the violations alleged: Start with the section "Who Is Siddique Kappan?" to understand the context of his arrest and the state's narrative versus the defense's position. Note the wide array of charges, including sedition and UAPA. Next, read the detailed "Timeline After Siddiquie Kappan Arrest". As you read, pay close attention to the repeated denial of bail, the reference to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA (which we discussed in the Bhima Koregaon context), and the delayed access to legal counsel. Finally, read the section on "Grave Criminal Justice Violations." This part highlights how the process of his arrest and detention allegedly violated established legal guidelines, such as those laid down in the D.K. Basu judgment, and fundamental rights.
The case against Kappan rested on the state's claim that he was not a journalist on assignment but a member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) with intentions to "incite riots." He was charged under UAPA for terrorism and under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for receiving illicit funds.
As you saw in the reading, the stringent bail conditions under UAPA's Section 43D(5) proved to be an insurmountable hurdle in the lower courts, keeping him in jail for nearly two years before the Supreme Court finally granted him bail in the UAPA case in September 2022, followed by the Allahabad High Court granting bail in the PMLA case.
This case was not just about one journalist; it was widely seen as a message to the entire journalistic community. The following video captures the sentiment among fellow journalists protesting on the one-year anniversary of his arrest.
1 Year of Siddique Kappan's Arrest: Journalists Protesting At Delhi Press Club Call Out Harrassment
This video from HW News English shows journalists protesting Kappan's arrest and articulating why they believe he was targeted.
Watch the segments from this point and from this second segment. Listen for the arguments that Kappan was targeted to send a "chilling effect" to other journalists, and how the use of UAPA makes it incredibly difficult to secure bail, effectively keeping a person imprisoned without trial.
Even after his release, the ordeal was not over. Kappan described his situation as living in an "open jail," burdened by ongoing legal proceedings. His case is a stark illustration of how the process—arrest, prolonged detention under UAPA, and endless court dates—becomes the punishment, regardless of the final verdict.
The Case of Mohammed Zubair: Fact-Checking as Incitement?
Our second case study involves a different form of journalism and a different legal tactic, but with a similar objective. Mohammed Zubair is the co-founder of Alt News, India's leading non-profit fact-checking website. His work involves debunking misinformation and hate speech circulating online.
In June 2022, Zubair was arrested by the Delhi Police. The stated reason was a tweet he had posted in 2018. The tweet contained a still image from a 1983 Hindi film, Kissi Se Na Kehna, showing a hotel signboard that had been repainted from "Honeymoon Hotel" to "Hanuman Hotel." Zubair had posted it with the caption, "Before 2014: Honeymoon Hotel. After 2014: Hanuman Hotel." The police claimed this tweet hurt religious sentiments.
His arrest came just days after he had publicly highlighted controversial remarks made by a national spokesperson for the BJP, which had led to widespread condemnation. This context led many to believe his arrest was retaliatory.
What followed was not an extended jail term under UAPA, but a different form of procedural harassment: a "cascade" or "spree" of First Information Reports (FIRs).
Criminalizing Independent Journalism: Hallmark of a Fascist Regime
This article from Groundxero summarizes the key facts of Mohammed Zubair's case.
Please read the two paragraphs in the subsection "Fate of common journalists and YouTubers" that begin with "Zubair has won". This will give you a concise overview of his arrest, the multiple FIRs, and the Supreme Court's ultimate intervention.
The police in Uttar Pradesh filed six separate FIRs against Zubair in different districts for the same and similar social media posts. This tactic forced him to seek bail in multiple jurisdictions, creating a legal quagmire designed to keep him in custody. He was moved from jail to jail as different police forces took custody.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which delivered a landmark order. A former Supreme Court judge, Justice Madan Lokur, explains the principles at stake in this excellent interview.
Ex-SC Judge Madan Lokur On Mohammed Zubair's Bail: 'Court Must Hold Police Accountable For Wrong...'
In this India Today interview, former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur analyzes the Supreme Court's order granting bail to Mohammed Zubair and discusses the broader issues of police accountability and arbitrary arrests.
Please watch these key segments: The Power to Arrest: Justice Lokur explains the Supreme Court's repeated message that the power to arrest must be used sparingly. Police Accountability: He argues for holding police accountable for unwarranted arrests and questions the initial decision to even arrest Zubair for the 2018 tweet, let alone remand him to custody. Arbitrary Use of Law: The discussion here focuses on how broadly worded laws like IPC Sections 153A and 295A can be arbitrarily used by police to target individuals.
The Supreme Court, in its final order, clubbed all the FIRs, transferred the investigation to Delhi, and granted him bail, stating that the "existence of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly" and that he was caught in a "vicious cycle of the criminal process."
Zubair's case demonstrates how laws intended to maintain public order (like Sec 153A and 295A) can be weaponized to silence fact-checkers and critics. The act of holding power to account was itself framed as an act of public incitement.
Conclusion: A Pattern of Legal Intimidation
The arrests of Siddique Kappan and Mohammed Zubair, though involving different laws and tactics, reveal a clear and concerning pattern in the criminalization of dissent aimed at the press.
Key Takeaways:
- Weaponization of Law: Stringent laws like UAPA and PMLA (in Kappan's case) and broadly worded IPC sections for promoting enmity (in Zubair's case) are employed to target journalists for their work.
- Process as Punishment: The strategy is often not to secure a conviction but to use the legal process itself as a tool of harassment. This is achieved through:
- Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention: Using UAPA to make bail virtually impossible, as seen with Kappan.
- Procedural Quagmires: Filing multiple FIRs across different states to entangle the individual in a "vicious cycle" of legal battles, as seen with Zubair.
- The "Chilling Effect": These high-profile arrests are intended to create a climate of fear, discouraging other journalists from covering sensitive political topics, investigating government actions, or fact-checking powerful individuals.
- Role of the Judiciary: While lower courts often approve police requests for custody, the Supreme Court has frequently stepped in as a crucial backstop, upholding fundamental rights and calling out the misuse of police powers. However, this relief often comes after the individual has already paid a significant price in terms of liberty, reputation, and resources.
These cases highlight a critical tension between state power and the constitutional guarantee of free speech. They show that beyond sedition, a wider legal arsenal is being deployed to reframe dissent and critical journalism as criminal activities.
In our next lesson, we will move from direct state action against individual journalists to a more structural pressure on the media: analyzing patterns of media ownership concentration and how this can impact journalistic independence. This will provide another layer to our understanding of the challenges facing the "fourth estate" in India.