Journalists’ Arrest in Telangana Raises Press Freedom Concerns
Detained Over a Video Critical of Chief Minister Revanth Reddy
March 14, 2025
Two YouTube journalists in Hyderabad, Telangana—Revathi Pogadadanda and Tanvi Yadav—have been arrested for airing a video critical of Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy of the Congress party. The video allegedly contained “derogatory” and “vulgar” content. However, arresting journalists for their work, even if it is considered offensive, doesn’t set a good precedent for democratic freedoms.
The arrests followed a complaint by a Congress worker, who claimed the video defamed the chief minister and could provoke societal divisions, according to The Indian Express. Police cited violations of the Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arguing that the video crossed “all levels of decency” and was part of a deliberate campaign to insult and defame the chief minister.
However, the arrests are widely seen as an attempt to silence dissent, raising critical questions about the limits of free speech and whether such actions are justified in a democracy.
For comparison, Hollywood actor Richard Gere recently called U.S. President Donald Trump a “bully and a thug” and warned that the world was on a “slippery slope,” as reported by The Independent. Speaking at Spain’s Goya Awards while accepting a lifetime achievement award, he said, “We’re in a very dark place in America, where we have a bully and a thug who’s the President of the United States… It’s not just in the U.S. It’s everywhere.” He also used an expletive to describe Trump.
In the U.S., the First Amendment protects free speech but allows restrictions on speech that incites violence, constitutes true threats, obscenity, defamation, child pornography, or false advertising. Gere’s remarks, in theory, could be interpreted as defamation or even obscenity, but no case has been filed against him. The U.S. political culture does not criminalise criticism of public figures, recognising that free speech must remain protected even when it is controversial.
In India, Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence. The journalists’ video could arguably be interpreted as violating “decency” or as politically biased. But should India encourage a culture where legal action is routinely taken against critics of public figures?
Politicians, given their power and influence, should expect and tolerate criticism. Legal cases should not be filed simply because speech is uncomfortable for those in authority. As regards defamation, it’s a civil matter, and those affected could have pursued civil remedies instead of criminal charges. Further, the claim that the video could provoke societal divisions is speculative and does not justify such drastic measures.
Moreover, the manner of the arrests—conducted at 5 a.m., with equipment seized and the journalists remanded to judicial custody for 14 days—appears heavy-handed and disproportionate.
The arrests also expose a troubling double standard: while journalists critical of those in power are swiftly punished, inflammatory and communal remarks by political leaders or their supporters often go unchecked.
Further, Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes and SIT) P. Viswaprasad’s argument, as reported by the Express, that the content violated “societal standards” is inherently subjective and cannot justify arrests. Societal standards evolve and vary, and the State cannot be the sole arbiter of what constitutes acceptable speech.
Allowing authorities to determine the limits of decency opens the door to arbitrary and politically motivated restrictions on free expression.
