The Guwahati Police have initiated legal procedures against various journalists, including a deceased ex-governor of Jammu and Kashmir, Satya Pal Malik, Pakistani public figure Najam Sethi, and Indian journalist Ashutosh Bharadwaj in addition to unnamed individuals. Said complaint, lodged on May 9, comes in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor and alleges the journalists of publishing pieces that debatably destabilize India’s sovereignty and security, incite public disarray, and disseminate false information.
The plaintiff contends that Najam Sethi’s involvement lends an international aspect to the situation that may portray India’s constitutional democracy as suppressive. This could unintentionally corroborate narratives given by adversarial governments, ultimately diminishing India’s sovereignty. The plaintiff emphasized the questionability of the timing of the news pieces immediately after a terror attack, arguing that the broadcasts can’t be disregarded as simple dissent.
According to the complainant, such incidents, especially when widespread and accessible to domestic and international audience, risk becoming tools of misinformation and national undermining, disguised as journalism. The complainant lodged concerns that these published segments were more than mere interviews. The individuals involved purportedly expressed severe and offensive remarks against the Indian Government, particularly regarding the Pahalgam terror attacks.
The plaintiff asserts that the nature of these interviews seemed to cross the boundaries of journalism, going so far as to provide a platform for unchecked, inflamed, and politically-motivated statements associating the Indian state with acts of terror committed by cross-border actors. The alarm was further raised by the recurring implication of complacency, neglect, or even orchestration by Indian authorities in these interviews.
These insinuations strengthen the propaganda of adversaries and seed mistrust within the Indian public, according to the plaintiff. He cited multiple articles portraying the Indian state as utterly ineffective while praising Pakistani terrorists as more cunning, arguing that such a narrative carelessly undermines faith in national security institutions, hurting the morale of India’s armed forces.
He pointed to a specific article he believed disparaged the constitutional role of the Prime Minister and condemned the mechanism of the Indian state’s response to terrorism, which further weakens the public’s trust in the state’s ability to safeguard its citizens. The complainant claimed that this blaming of the Pahalgam terror attack on the failures of India’s sovereign policies and the echoing of enemy narratives dangerously shifts blame from Pakistan initiated terrorism to domestic governance issues.
The release of five articles in the immediate wake of the Pahalgam terror attack was of particular concern, according to the complainant. He believed these articles systematically undermine the credibility of India’s armed forces, challenge the legitimacy of sovereign responses, amplify hostile narratives without thorough verification, and subtly equate counter-terrorism operations with communal and electoral motivations.
The plaintiff suggests that such publications could weaken public faith and military secrecy during an already delicate time when national unity is a priority. These actions not only risk provoking internal instability, endangering lives but also impacting India’s reputation on the international stage. According to him, the protection of freedom of speech should not justify the intentional undermining of constitutional institutions, especially during times of national emergencies.
He further argued that such actions could be deemed offensive to the state according to both penal and constitutional law. Essentially, freedom of expression should not be misused as a green light to justify the intellectual legitimization of enemy goals or internal disruption, particularly during times when the nation is already facing significant challenges.
He stressed that such attempts cannot be justified as journalistic pursuits in public interest; they were calculated narratives designed to weaken India’s unity, fuel communal discord, and erode institutional confidence during national critical times. Practices like these warrant stringent constitutional inspection and, if deemed fit, might encourage the implementation of the penal framework to safeguard India’s sovereignty and integrity.
The post Journalists Accused of Undermining Indian Sovereignty Amid Terror Attack appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
