# data[].attributes.body
1. Chayara Rameyza 210610250070

2. Dessyifa Chaerunnisa 210610250061

3. Sandrina Hendayu Eka Putri 210610250055

4. Aulia Nur Febrianti 210610250081

5. Gina Sonya 210610250064

# data[].attributes.body
Mukesh Chandrakar, seorang jurnalis asal India, ditemukan tidak bernyawa di tangki septic tank di negara bagian Chhattisgarh.

Beliau merupakan seorang jurnalis yang bekerja mandiri (lepas) dan telah banyak melaporkan dugaan korupsi dalam proyek konstruksi publik. Chandrakar juga memiliki saluran YouTube, Bastar Junction.

Mukesh Chandrakar dinyatakan hilang pada saat tahun baru dan keluarga mengajukan pengaduan ke polisi. Polisi di distrik Bijapur awalnya tidak menemukan apapun saat kunjungan awal ke kompleks pada 2 Januari. Kemudian jasadnya ditemukan pada hari Jumat di kompleks kontraktor pembangunan jalan di daerah kota Bijapur setelah petugas melacak ponselnya.Tubuhnya menunjukkan banyak luka parah seperti serangan benda tumpul.

Terdapat berbagai dugaan tentang kematiannya, beberapa mengatakan mungkin sifatnya yang memicu spekulasi tentang penyebab kematiannya. Karena dua orang yang ditangkap masih memiliki hubungan keluarga dengannya, salah satunya seorang kontraktor.

# data[].attributes.body
Faktor penyebab pembunuhan mukesh Chandrakar adalah karena wartawan lepas ini telah memberitakan mengenai kasus korupsi proyek pembangunan jalan di Bijaipur, India. Yang melibatkan seorang kontraktor dan dua orang lainnya menjadi tersangka atas kasus ini, lalu Mengutip laporan media lokal, VOA Menyebutkan bahwa jasad Mukesh menunjukkan bukti serangan brutal, dengan tulang rusuk yang patah dan fraktur pada tengkorak setelah ditemukan di septic tank pada 3 Januari 2025.

Melansir dari artikel yg diunggah oleh Liputan6, Mukesh belum lama ini menyelidiki skandal pembangunan jalan di Bijapur, yang mengarah pada penyelidikan resmi terhadap para kontraktor. Wakil ketua menteri Chhattisgarh seperti dilaporkan media lokal mengatakan polisi menduga pembunuhan Mukesh terkait langsung dengan liputan yang dilakukannya. Laporan tentang kasus korupsi ini disiarkan pada 25 Desember.

beberapa media juga mengaitkan kasus ini dengan hubungan kekeluargaan sebagai faktor penyebabnya pembunuhan Mukesh setelah sepupu Mukesh sendiri yang menjadi salah satu tersangka pembunuhan.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.voaindonesia.com/a/usai-pembunuhan-wartawan-di-india-seruan-perlindungan-jurnalis-kian-kencang/7927835.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tragedi Wartawan India Pelapor Korupsi Ditemukan Tewas di Tangki Septik Soroti Risiko Jurnalisme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India menduduki peringkat ke-159 dalam Indeks Kebebasan Pers Dunia 2024 yang diterbitkan setiap tahun oleh Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

# data[].attributes.body
Kasus pembunuhan Mukesh Chandrakar memicu seruan massa yang menuntut perlindungan terhadap jurnalis.

Press Club of India, salah satu persatuan media terbesar di India, menuntut pemerintah melakukan langkah-langkah perlindungan bagi para pekerja media.

Selain itu, Komunitas Mahar, suatu komunitas yang memperjuangkan kesetaraan kasta di India, juga ikut menyerukan tuntutan keadilan bagi para wartawan. “Kami menginginkan lingkungan yang aman bagi wartawan, sehingga mereka dapat bekerja dengan bebas dan tanpa rasa takut," ungkap RD Jhadi, perwakilan Komunitas Mahar, pada Minggu, 5 Januari 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tragedi Wartawan India Pelapor Korupsi Ditemukan Tewas di Tangki Septik Soroti Risiko Jurnalisme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India menduduki peringkat ke-159 dalam Indeks Kebebasan Pers Dunia 2024 yang diterbitkan setiap tahun oleh Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

# data[].attributes.body
Pelanggaran atas kebebasan pers juga membawa pengaruh negatif pada kehidupan sosial di masyarakat, kesulitan dalam akses informasi yang kredibel serta akurat merupakan dampak yang dapat dilihat secara langsung.

Pembungkaman kepada pers—yang dalam kasus ini sampai kepada kasus pembunuhan—juga mampu membunuh penyebaran informasi oleh media yang seharusnya menjadi hak masyarakat untuk tahu yang juga adalah hak konstitusional bagi seluruh warga negara Indonesia yang dijamin pada pasal 28 F UUD 1945.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mukesh Chandrakar: Journalist’s murder highlights risks of reporting in small-town India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mukesh Chandrakar, who was found dead last week, told important stories from a violence-prone region in India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jasad Jurnalis India Ditemukan di Septic Tank, Chandrakar Tewas Usai Laporkan Korupsi |Republika Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mukesh Chandrakar, 32 (tahun), hilang pada Hari Tahun Baru.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Memberikan hukuman yang pantas bagi terdakwa

Karena pembunuhan Mukesh Chandrakar termasuk ke dalam pembunuhan berencana yang masuk ke dalam The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Oleh sebab itu, bagi yang terdakwa harus dijatuhi hukuman yang berat seperti penjara seumur hidup.

2. Menerapkan langkah-langkah konkret demi menjaga keselamatan jurnalis

Pemerintah harus bisa menjamin perlindungan pers yang hanya ingin menjalankan tugasnya. Saat ini India tidak memiliki Undang-undang tunggal untuk perlindungan pers. Bahkan di tempat Chandrakar dibunuh, sempat mencoba untuk meloloskan UU untuk melindungi jurnalis, sayangnya legislasinya terhambat karena kurangnya dukungan politik. Artinya dukungan dari politik dapat membantu mengesahkan UU perlindungan pers.

3.  Memberikan jurnalis hak untuk kebebasan bersuara terutama tentang pemerintahan

India memiliki konsep Pasal 19(1)(a) Konstitusi India yang menjamin hak atas kebebasan berbicara dan berekspresi (termasuk pers). Akan tetapi Pasal 19(2) memberlakukan pembatasan tertentu terhadap kebebasan demi kepentingan kedaulatan dan integritas India. Sehingga pers tidak dapat sepenuhnya bebas untuk bersuara karena ditakutkannya adalah jurnalis atau industri media meliput berita apa pun  dan menyampaikannya pada khalayak yang dapat memengaruhi keamanan  negara. Tetapi jika ada jurnalis yang ingin menyampaikan kasus korupsi, seharusnya ia tidak mendapatkan ancaman atau pun intimidasi.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legal The use of defamation legal guidelines and sedition charges towards newshounds is a sizeable difficulty. These laws are regularly misused to silence critical voices and stifle dissent. The indistinct and ambiguous nature of those legal guidelines permits for arbitrary interpretations, leading to a chilling impact on free speech.

In the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) , the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) however clarified that it has to be narrowly interpreted and confined to acts regarding incitement to violence or public disease. The court docket emphasized the significance of defensive freedom of speech and expression, together with the proper to criticize the government or its guidelines.

3.Ownership and Control: Concentration of media possession within the palms of some powerful entities is every other project. This consolidation limits the range of voices and views in the media landscape, influencing the content and editorial independence of media outlets.

The government's reluctance to proportion facts below the Right to Information Act hampers investigative journalism and the general public's proper to realize. The opacity surrounding the functioning of public institutions and absence of transparency undermine the press's capability to act as a watchdog.

the advent of the internet and social media has expanded the avenues for expression and democratized access to information. However, it has also led to the spread of misinformation, fake news, and hate speech. Balancing the need for freedom of expression with the responsibility to combat these challenges poses a complex dilemma.

The press additionally acts as a bridge among the government and the public, facilitating informed public discourse and selling democratic participation. It disseminates facts, educates the masses, and allows citizens to make informed decisions. Media campaigns on public issues, along with fitness, schooling, and the environment, have caused fine coverage changes and social transformation.

1.Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) [ii] In this case, the supreme court of India emphasized the importance of freedom of the press and its role in disseminating information to the public. The court held that any attempt to curtail the freedom of the press should be viewed with skepticism, as it can have a detrimental impact on the democratic fabric of the nation.

2. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): 3This landmark case established that the freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the press. The supreme court held that precensorship of a journal or newspaper is a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression and should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances.

3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973): In this case, the supreme court upheld the importance of media freedom and recognized the role of the press as a watchdog. The court held that the government's attempt to control and restrict the advertisement policy of newspapers would amount to a violation of the freedom of the press.

4. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) [iv] In this case, the supreme court ruled that live telecast of cricket matches is a form of expression protected under Article 19(1)(a). the court emphasized that the right to information includes the right to receive information, and the government cannot impose restrictions that would curtail the public's access to such information.

In the case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971 The Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of pre-screening movies under the Cinematograph Act, in relation to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court concluded that pre-screening should be an exception, not the norm, and any limitations on freedom of speech and expression should be rational and in the best interests of the public. It stressed the significance of artistic freedom and recognized films as a medium of expression deserving protection. The verdict emphasized the necessity for a certification process that informs viewers rather than enforcing arbitrary edits, ensuring a wide range of ideas and perspectives. This case played a pivotal role in shaping the legal principles surrounding the boundaries and safeguards of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19.

Pre-censorship is the act of subjecting publications, such as movies and media content, to government inspection and approval prior to their release. This practice places restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India, in notable cases such as Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) and K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971) , has asserted that pre-censorship should be an exception rather than the norm. The court emphasized the necessity for any limitation on freedom of speech and expression to be reasonable, necessary, and in the interest of public order or national security. These judgments established the principle that pre-censorship should be constrained and only warranted in exceptional circumstances, thus safeguarding the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19.

Enhancing the Authority of the Press Council of India: The indispensable role of the Press Council of India in safeguarding press freedom necessitates the reinforcement of its autonomy and independence. Granting the council, the power to implement its decisions and recommendations would ensure media organizations compliance with ethical standards and preservation of their editorial autonomy.

Encouraging Self-Regulation: Facilitating the adoption of self-regulatory mechanisms by media organizations can effectively uphold ethical standards and foster accountability. Media bodies should establish and enforce codes of conduct, establish mechanisms to address grievances, and ensure transparency in their operations. The government can bolster these endeavors by providing incentives and recognition to media organizations that exemplify responsible journalism practices.

Reinforcing Protections for Whistleblowers: Whistleblowers play a pivotal role in uncovering corruption and misconduct. To encourage and safeguard them, we should establish robust legal measures that shield whistleblowers from retaliation and harassment. Legislation dedicated to whistleblower protection must be enacted and effectively implemented, providing assurance to those who expose wrongdoing that they will be shielded from adverse consequences.

Cultivating Media Literacy and Critical Thinking: The education system should incorporate media literacy programs to equip citizens with the necessary skills to critically assess news and information. By promoting media literacy, individuals can become discerning consumers of news, capable of identifying credible sources and differentiating between factual reporting and false information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A STUDY ON FREEDOM OF PRESS IN INDIA WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frееdom of the press is a cornerstone of any democratic society. It plays a vital role in upholding the values of transparency and accountab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
India: Pembunuhan Reporter Lokal Ancam Kebebasan Pers – DW – 22.01.2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ancaman pembunuhan menyusutkan ruang bagi jurnalisme independen di India. Pengekangan terutama dikeluhkan di zona konflik dan kota-kota kecil. Akibatnya, peringkat India di Indeks Kebebasan Pers merosot tajam.