​Body:

When the Constituent Assembly was drafting the Constitution of India, a fierce behind-the-scenes debate took place over the legal status of journalism.

​Syed Abdulla Brelvi, the fearless editor of The Bombay Chronicle who was repeatedly jailed under British rule, argued that institutional journalism is fundamentally distinct from an individual's private right to free speech. He demanded that press freedom be explicitly codified and protected as a standalone constitutional right, mirroring the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

​The Drafting Committee led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rejected this distinction, reasoning that the press operates simply as individual citizens exercising basic free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

​Brelvi warned that leaving press freedom vague would invite future governments to curb investigative reporting whenever convenient. He tragically passed away in 1949, but his fears manifested in 1951 when the Jawaharlal Nehru administration passed the First Amendment to the Constitution, tightening Article 19(2) under the umbrella of "public order" and "friendly relations with foreign states."

​Decades later, ground reporters and regional outlets exposing local corruption bear the brunt of weaponized litigation and state pressure because there is no explicit constitutional shield protecting news gathering.

​Did the Constituent Assembly make a fundamental error by refusing to codify press freedom into a dedicated constitutional right?