The interim order of the Madras HC in the case ‘Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India’ have brought attention to the critical importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom in India. The case involves Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Vikatan), a prominent Tamil weekly publication, whose entire website was blocked pursuant to an order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The central government cited a cartoon published on the site—depicting the Indian Prime Minister and the then-President of the United States—as a threat to India’s sovereignty and foreign relations.

Freedom of speech and its nexus with the press freedom

Freedom of speech is integral to any democratic setup, often described as the very cornerstone that supports all other liberties. In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution explicitly protects every citizen’s right to free speech and expression—an umbrella under which press freedom thrives. The press itself is commonly recognized as the “fourth pillar of democracy,” reflecting its mission to remain independent of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

In the United States, the landmark “Pentagon Papers” decision (New York Times v. Sullivan) underscored that the press must do more than merely transmit information between government officials and the public: it should operate as a neutral institution, shining a light on governmental functions and exposing any shortcomings. Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the freedom of the press by name, the Supreme Court has long affirmed in cases like Sakal Papers v. Union of India that freedom of speech and expression is a broad genus, of which press freedom is a vital species. Open discourse, critiques, and reporting on the functioning of government serve the public interest—so whenever laws or administrative measures threaten to muzzle the press, courts bear the responsibility to strike them down and uphold the Constitution.

The blocking of Vikatan’s website

1. Government’s action
   On 25.02.2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order blocking the entire website of Vikatan. Officials argued that a caricature published by the magazine undermined India’s friendly relations with a foreign state, thus justifying the action under Section 69A of the IT Act and the “reasonable restrictions” outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Vikatan’s response
   Vikatan challenged the blanket ban as excessive. They maintained that political satire and commentary lie at the heart of a free press. Shutting down an entire website over a single image, they argued, was disproportionate and infringed upon both their editorial independence and the readers’ right to information.

The Madras high court’s interim order

On 06.03.2025, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy granted partial relief:

• Limited removal of content: The Court held that blocking the entire domain was unnecessary. It directed the publishers to temporarily remove only the specific cartoon in question.
• Unblocking the site: Once the offending material was taken down, the Union of India was to promptly restore access to the rest of the website.
• Further hearing: The Court set a date two weeks later for the central government to file its counter-affidavit, at which time it would scrutinize whether the caricature truly warranted any continued restriction.

This approach aligns with the principle of proportionality, a concept clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Courts have insisted that restrictions on speech must be the least intrusive possible—removing only the offending material, rather than imposing an overbroad restriction affecting legitimate content or expression.

The order in the case Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India (WP 7944 of 2025) Delivered by Madras HC Bharatha Chakravarthy J on March 6, 2025 may be read here:

By granting Vikatan temporary relief and restricting the blocking order to only the particular caricature, the Madras High Court has made an important statement about press freedom in the digital era. This nuanced approach promotes a healthy environment for political satire and commentary, without dismissing national security or foreign-policy concerns. As India continues to rely on digital platforms for information and debate, the balance struck in cases like Vikatan serves as a reminder that freedom of speech particularly the freedom of the press remains the lifeblood of any vibrant democracy.

Related:

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

The post Madras HC unblocks Vikatan site appeared first on SabrangIndia.

BJP’s political vendetta against Vikatan

Reports indicate that BJP leaders in Tamil Nadu were incensed by the cartoon, which they viewed as an affront to Modi’s image. The illustration mocked Modi’s election strategy and his alignment with Trump’s brand of right-wing populism, implying that Modi was constrained in his dealings with the United States. Rather than countering criticism through debate, BJP members allegedly pressured authorities to act against the publication. This follows a well-documented pattern where media outlets, journalists, and activists critical of the ruling party are subjected to intimidation, legal harassment, and outright suppression. Many have argued that the BJP is using state machinery to muzzle dissent, reinforcing India’s drift towards authoritarianism under Modi’s leadership.

The shadowy mechanisms of censorship

What makes the Vikatan episode particularly concerning is the sheer opacity surrounding the takedown. There has been no official court order, no government notification, and no clear legal basis for the restriction. Instead, it appears that the government has resorted to vague, extra-legal means—perhaps through arbitrary applications of the Information Technology Act, 2000—to justify its actions of blocking the website. The lack of transparency raises troubling questions about whether the state is deliberately avoiding legal scrutiny by bypassing due process. This incident sets a precedent where any dissenting media outlet could be silenced overnight, with no accountability from the authorities.

In response to the arbitrary censorship, Vikatan has strongly condemned the government’s actions, calling them “an unprecedented attack on press freedom.” The publication released a statement asserting that it had merely exercised its journalistic duty to critique those in power and that such intimidation tactics would not deter it from reporting the truth. “Democracy thrives on dialogue and dissent. Silencing independent voices is a dangerous precedent that threatens the very foundations of free speech,” the statement read. Vikatan further demanded a formal explanation for the takedown and vowed to pursue legal remedies if necessary. The publication also received widespread solidarity from journalists, media watchdogs, and press organisations, all of whom view this as a blatant attempt to curb independent reporting.

T Murugan, the editor of the magazine, defended the cartoon as a legitimate form of criticism and a symbol of democratic dissent, stating that the magazine will not surrender its freedom in the face of such threats and intimidation. He clarified that there was no official directive to block the website, describing the action as unofficial. According to Murugan, the magazine’s management believes that service providers like Airtel and Jio were likely pressured into restricting access to the site, which was blocked around 7 pm on Saturday. He also noted that the magazine, which has championed free speech for nearly a century, is currently seeking clarification from the Union government regarding the reasons for the restriction. 

Political leaders condemn the move

Opposition leaders, press freedom advocates, and civil society groups have strongly condemned the censorship of Vikatan. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi criticised the action as “yet another desperate attempt by the Modi government to suppress dissenting voices,” emphasising that “the BJP is dismantling democracy piece by piece.” DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin called the move “a brazen assault on press freedom,” highlighting that “Vikatan’s fearless journalism has always been a voice of the people—silencing it is an attack on democratic values.”

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), a prominent political party in Tamil Nadu, described the government’s action as a “fascist tendency” that reveals an intolerance toward legitimate criticism. Journalists’ collectives including the Chennai Press Club and civil rights organisations have also decried the move, warning that it represents a dangerous precedent where political pressure can dictate government censorship of the media. Ram further emphasised the unprecedented nature of the digital blockade: “This is not a simple blocking move. By degrading and preventing access to digital news content through non-transparent ‘dirty tricks’ technical manoeuvres, it subverts media freedom and reader’s right to information. This arbitrary action, utterly devoid of legality, has wide implications for the media sector.”

Ram added that on February 16, after technical censorship had been set in motion and the damage had been done, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sent a notice to the Vikatan group.

As per the information provided by Ram, the said notice states that the ministry had “received a request for blocking of certain content” published at a website affiliated with Vikatan; that a “meeting of the Inter-Departmental Committee constituted under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021” was scheduled for February 17; and that Vikatan could “appear and submit its comments/clarifications, if any, before the Committee.”

Ram commented that it was a case of “Sentence first, verdict afterwards” – a reference to the impatient declaration by the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Even former BJP ally and AIADMK leader O. Panneerselvam distanced himself from the censorship, stating that “freedom of the press is non-negotiable, and actions like these only strengthen the perception that the BJP is intolerant of criticism.” Despite this outcry, the central government has refused to issue a statement, reinforcing suspicions that it orchestrated the takedown but wants to avoid public accountability.

A history of suppression: Vikatan and beyond

This is not the first time Vikatan has faced political retribution for its reporting. In 1987, the magazine’s editor was arrested for publishing material critical of the government, reflecting a long history of state-driven intimidation against independent media. However, under the Modi government, such suppression has escalated to an unprecedented level. Independent journalists have been arrested, digital media platforms have been raided, and news organisations critical of the BJP have faced financial and legal crackdowns. The broader trend is clear: press freedom in India is under siege.

The implications for Indian media

Vikatan’s ordeal is a warning to all media houses in India: no outlet is safe from government retaliation. The chilling effect is already evident, with many journalists and editors choosing self-censorship over the risk of shutdowns, arrests, or financial ruin. If this trajectory continues unchecked, India’s press will be reduced to little more than a government mouthpiece. The international community has already noted this decline—India has plummeted in global press freedom rankings, with watchdog organisations repeatedly raising concerns over the state’s hostility toward independent journalism.

The Vikatan controversy serves as a litmus test for India’s democratic resilience. Press organisations, journalists, and civil society must push back forcefully, demanding explanations and legal clarity from the government. The Editors Guild of India, Reporters without Borders, and other advocacy groups have decried the censorship, but strong words alone will not suffice. If this case fades into silence, it will embolden the government to act with even greater impunity in the future.

The question remains: Will India’s media fraternity and civil society take a stand, or will silence become the new normal?

Related:

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

2023 Amendment to Broadcasting Rules are clear case of censorship nothing less: Justice GS Patel, Bombay HC

Gateway to Censorship: caution and concern over the proposed Broadcasting Bill, 2023

In a global storm of censorship, Hindus for Human Rights, IAMC and journalists accounts have been suspended

The post Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.