India’s New Labour Codes Have Dismantled Legal Protections for Journalists

From the Editor’s Desk

January 14, 2026

The central government has brought into force the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, repealing the two special laws that had governed the service conditions and wages of working journalists since 1955. The change marks a retreat from the idea that journalism requires tailored labour protection and replaces it with a generic framework that weakens the professional security of the press.

The new code, announced on November 21, 2025, forms part of a larger exercise to consolidate India’s labour laws into four broad codes, as noted by The Leaflet. Under this process, 29 existing labour laws were grouped and absorbed into the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Social Security Code, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, or OSHW Code.

The OSHW Code absorbed 13 earlier laws, including the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act of 1955 and the Working Journalists Fixation of Rates of Wages Act of 1958.

The OSHW Code retains definitions for newspapers, newspaper establishments and working journalists that closely mirror the earlier legislation. It sets out general rules on working hours, weekly holidays, inspections and safety standards that apply across industries such as factories, mines, plantations, construction and contract labour. The code repeals the earlier journalist specific laws from the date of its notification and places journalists entirely within this unified framework.

Labour law rests on the principle that different forms of work carry different risks and power imbalances. In economic terms, journalists operate in a labour market where employers hold structural power over hiring, pay and continuation of work, while individual journalists face career risks for professional decisions. Special legislation addressed this imbalance by setting floors on wages, hours and termination conditions. Removing this tailored framework leaves journalists to bargain individually in a market where their leverage remains limited.

Another principle comes from constitutional theory, which treats a free press as a public good. A public good benefits society at large rather than only the individual producer. Journalism serves this role by informing citizens and enabling democratic accountability. Laws that protect journalists’ working conditions strengthen this public good by reducing pressure on reporters to trade professional judgment for job security.

A legal regime that treats journalism as ordinary industrial labour weakens that protection.

From the perspective of administrative law, earlier wage boards created a transparent and structured process for fixing journalist pay. These boards drew on evidence, industry data and representation from both employers and employees. Their removal shifts wage setting entirely to private contracts between unequal parties. Over time, this encourages a race to the lowest viable pay, especially in an industry already under financial strain.

Employment law also recognises that dismissal and resignation require safeguards where work involves ethical judgment. The conscience clause under the 1955 Act allowed journalists to contest resignations linked to professional integrity. This reflected the reality that editorial pressure often takes subtle forms. The absence of such a provision narrows the space for ethical resistance within newsrooms and increases vulnerability to managerial pressure.

Comparative labour studies show that consolidation exercises often promise simplicity but deliver dilution. By folding sector specific laws into broad codes, the state reduces administrative burden while transferring risk to workers. In this case, the code brings journalists under rules designed for physical safety and standard hours, while leaving questions of editorial independence and professional risk unaddressed.

The timing of the change also matters in political economy. The notification arrived alongside public campaigns celebrating reforms for gig and platform workers. This contrast reveals a policy hierarchy where emerging sectors receive symbolic attention while legacy protections for the press receive little public explanation.

The absence of debate or transition arrangements suggests a low institutional priority assigned to journalistic labour.

In democratic theory, institutions gain legitimacy through continuity and reasoned change. The journalist specific laws evolved through commissions, parliamentary debate and repeated judicial scrutiny over seven decades. Their sudden repeal through consolidation, without equivalent replacement, breaks the chain of reasoning.

The outcome places journalists in a weaker legal position than the one carefully constructed since the mid-twentieth century, altering the legal basis of their employment and professional role.

You’ve just read a News Briefing written by Newsreel Asia’s Text Editor, Vishal Arora, meant to cut through the noise and bring you one important story of the day. We invite you to read the News Briefing daily. Our aim is to help you become a sharp, responsible and engaged citizen who asks the right questions.