The government has restricted the number of curfew passes issued to the media houses and journalists, thus coming under fire from journalists, human rights groups and political parties. However, Shrish Shumsher Rana, the minister of state for Information and Communication, has tried to defend the untenable move by arguing that media houses have been misusing the curfew passes which are issued for ‘limited mobility’. He put forward the curious thesis that curfew passes (to media houses) are not meant for reporting the news. He even accused some media houses of ‘misusing the passes by instigating the demonstrators with provocative news’. Evidently to apply this theory, Rana told a press conference on Sunday that for (foreign) journalists interested in covering specific incidents, the Department of Information would take them on a guided tour of selected sites.

Rana’s ‘limited mobility, no reporting’ argument does not bear scrutiny. If not for reporting, the passes would prove largely worthless for media houses, as it would lance a key component of journalism, thus making the people’s right to know a casualty. The news business is an essential service and for this reason curfew passes are its rights. During a curfew, nobody would go on a picnic or paint the town red. Journalists must have the freedom to roam around carrying a curfew pass, deciding freely what is worth reporting and what is not, and picking up angles of their choice. It is not for the government to dictate to the media in this regard. During a curfew even the mobility of pass-holders would automatically be restricted. Besides, how often the pass-holders use their passes is beside the point. It is not for the government to tell the media what to cover and what not to cover.

The trouble is, the state-run media are exempt from the Rana-prescribed tests. He actually let the cat out of the bag when he accused some media houses of ‘misuse’ for coming out with ‘provocative news’. There have been credible charges of discrimination in the distribution of the passes. Passes have been issued also for considerations other than absolute necessity. The government has no right to deny curfew passes to established media houses who are not supposed to act according to the likes and dislikes of the powers-that-be. If journalists commit libel or other offences, they can be brought to the court. But denying passes on petty political considerations amounts to depriving the media of their constitutional right and their professional duty. What is this if not an infringement upon media independence?