When every hand holds a mobile phone, every phone becomes a newsroom, and every social media influencer starts calling himself a journalist, who will separate the genuine from the fake? Does holding a camera replace professional training? Does shouting at a government officer qualify someone as a journalist? And does merely claiming to belong to the press entitle anyone to special protection and privileges? These are uncomfortable questions. But they can no longer be brushed under the carpet.

The Supreme Court has recently drawn attention to the complex issue of identifying journalists while hearing a matter concerning the protection of independent journalists, freelancers and filmmakers. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed to the difficulties of defining a journalist in the digital age.

Also read: अब पत्रकारिता को चाहिए पहचान, मर्यादा और जवाबदेही…

Senior advocate Indira Jaising argued that independent journalists covering public-interest issues and protests should not face discrimination merely because they lack government accreditation.

The Solicitor General raised a different but equally relevant concern. Today, anyone with a mobile phone can claim to be a journalist. The court indicated that the issue deserved detailed consideration. No final definition has yet been laid down. But the question remains: What exactly is journalism?

Journalism is not merely about carrying a camera, holding a microphone or uploading videos on social media. It requires knowledge, professional skills, verification of facts and an understanding of public responsibility. Integrity, ethical conduct and accountability are equally important.

A mobile phone is a tool, not a certificate of competence. A loud voice is no guarantee of professional ability. And a press card is not a magic wand that places its holder above the law.

Unfortunately, the face of Indian journalism has become deeply troubling in many quarters. News is losing ground to spectacle. Serious reporting is giving way to shouting matches. In the relentless race for television ratings, truth often becomes the first casualty.

Many media personalities have expressed concern about the decline of traditional journalism. Newsrooms increasingly chase ratings and reach rather than relevance.

Veteran journalists have been sharply critical of the quality of Indian television news. They have raised concerns about the erosion of journalistic ethics and the growing dominance of commercial interests. The criticism may sound harsh. But what is the point of pretending that everything is fine?

When noise sells better than news, abuse replaces questioning, and propaganda pushes investigation aside, the credibility of the entire profession is bound to suffer.

Journalism is not an open fairground where every Tom, Dick and Harry can set up a stall and demand respect. But neither is it the private property of the government, which can decide who may speak and who must remain silent. So, what is the way forward?

India needs a credible, transparent and independent system for establishing professional journalistic identity. A degree or diploma in journalism or mass communication from a recognised institution, minimum professional experience, and association with an established media organisation could serve as useful indicators. But educational qualifications alone cannot be the final test.

Many outstanding journalists have entered the profession without formal degrees. They have earned their credibility through years of hard work, courageous reporting and commitment to the public interest. Conversely, possessing a degree does not automatically make someone competent, honest or ethical.

Registration requirements applicable to print media can help establish the identity of media organisations. But registration alone cannot guarantee the quality of journalism. There is a world of difference between having a name on paper and doing credible work on the ground.

UNESCO offers an important international perspective on this debate. It does not prescribe rigid academic qualifications, compulsory licensing or a fixed number of journalists. Its approach focuses on the activity of journalism: gathering information, examining facts, documenting events and communicating information in the public interest.

This broader understanding leaves room for independent journalists, freelancers, bloggers and citizen journalists. Their work cannot simply be dismissed because they lack formal accreditation. What matters is whether they gather and verify information, report responsibly and serve the public interest. This is particularly important in rural India and remote areas.

Across villages, small towns and neglected regions, journalists work with limited resources. They may have neither a fancy newsroom nor an impressive press card. Yet they expose corruption, highlight administrative failures and bring the grievances of ordinary people into public view.

Sometimes, these small-town reporters pursue stories that large media organisations prefer to ignore. To dismiss such journalists merely because they lack a degree or government accreditation would be unjust. Their work, experience, credibility and ethical conduct must count. But inclusiveness should not become an excuse for allowing everyone to get away with everything.

Some people exploit the name of journalism to extort money, intimidate traders, threaten officials and blackmail ordinary citizens. For them, a camera is not an instrument for uncovering the truth. It is a weapon for creating fear and extracting personal benefits.

Such conduct brings disgrace to the entire profession. A handful of impostors can damage the reputation of thousands of honest journalists. The distinction must be clear. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom to intimidate, extort or blackmail.

The right to ask questions comes with the responsibility to act honestly. A journalist has every right to question authority, but no right to misuse that position for private gain. The solution, therefore, does not lie in compulsory government licensing or political control over the press.

India needs an independent and transparent framework that distinguishes between the right to report, professional recognition and access to special privileges. A clear code of ethics, impartial investigation of complaints and proportionate action against proven misconduct can help restore the profession's dignity.

But there is an equally important warning. The government must not become the ultimate judge of who qualifies as a journalist simply because it likes or dislikes someone's reporting. If the state acquires the power to decide who may practise journalism, inconvenient questions could easily be silenced in the name of regulation.

Democracy needs journalists who question authority, investigate wrongdoing and expose uncomfortable truths. Their job is not to compose flattering verses in praise of those in power. Their job is to ask questions that those in power would rather avoid.

If the government starts deciding who a journalist is, tomorrow's headlines may be replaced by official orders. Every citizen has the right to speak. The freedom to gather and communicate information in the public interest must also be protected. But professional recognition and the special privileges associated with it should rest on credible work, experience and responsibility. Journalism does not earn respect by demanding it. It earns respect through honest work.

Ultimately, the question is not how many people carry cameras, microphones or press cards. The real question is how many can be trusted to tell the truth.

A journalist is not simply someone who calls himself one. A journalist is someone whose reporting people can trust.