PIL in Rajasthan High Court Seeks Declaration Of All Journalists Irrespective Of Accreditation As COVID-19 Frontline Workers

The petitioner, a journalist by profession, has preferred the petition stating that non/accredited media persons and journalists and their family members are under a great risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus without any relief by the government.

"They have no social security benefit and in case of unfortunate death in the line of duty, they also do not have any means of ex-gratia compensation either from the management or from the government."

The petition states that similar to how doctors, nurses, health care personnel, ASHA activists, Police, Paramilitary personnel are called Corona Warriors for functioning as essential services for the control and prevention of CoronaVirus, Journalists in both print and electronic media must be given the status of a frontline worker/corona warrior. While highlighting the various work done by the journalists in the pandemic, including interviews of doctors, visits to hospitals, awareness programmes etc., the petition says that their work is very risky, and they have a high chance of contracting the virus.

"It is important to provide schemes for the welfare of the non accredited Journalist/ Media Persons who are also doing work of frontline workers in the present crisis", the petition adds.

The PIL-petitioner highlights the situation of non-accredited journalists and media persons during the pandemic, seeking directions from the Court to ensure proper and adequate Covid treatment to them and their families, among other things.

Data suggests that maximum deaths of journalists due to COVID-19 in smaller cities:

As per the data by the Institute of Perception Studies and Rate the debate, between April 01, 2020, and May 28, 2021, there have been 284 verified and 159 unverified deaths of journalists, where the majority is concentrated in the age range of 41-50 years. Of these deaths, only 31% of deaths have occurred in metro cities; the rest remain concentrated in smaller cities. Also, 57% of the deaths are attributed to journalists belonging to the print media.

Of 70 journalists who were surveyed by the Institute of Perception Studies and Rated the debate, 40 (57%) of them were without accreditation, while others remain accredited to the Press Information Bureau and the State Government.

"That data gives a stark reality about the journalists who are not accredited by the Central or State Government and they constitute a large portion. Thus, the non-accredited journalists and their families will suffer due to a mere technicality which can be removed by the Government considering the unprecedented time during the crisis of the pandemic", the petition adds.

Accreditation a pre-condition to claim relief under welfare schemes of the Rajasthan Government? No parity, says PIL.

The Rajasthan State Government in March 2021 gave the accredited journalist the status of frontline worker/ covid warrior and included them in the insurance scheme for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- aid to the deceased who died while on duty for COVID-19 relief. However, the benefit does not extend to non-accredited journalists and media personnel reporting from the ground without adequate protective equipment.

The PIL-petitioner states that the Government scheme makes accreditation a prerequisite to claiming the benefits extended, becoming a big obstacle.

"Accreditation is the process whereby the Government recognises the news media representatives for access to sources of information in the Government and to news materials, written or pictorial, released by the PIB or other agencies of the Government.'

Rajasthan Press Representatives Accreditation Rules, 1995 lays down that for accreditation, among other things, a journalist needs to have a minimum professional experience as a full time working journalist along with a recommendation by the Journalist body. Unfortunately, these criteria will leave behind several journalists "dying in the line of duty due to COVID-19".

The petition prays for equal protection being extended to non-accredited journalists and not considered the criterion laid in the 1995 rules regarding eligibility criteria for the benefits against COVID-19.

The petition demonstrates a situation how two colleagues working in the same organisation, on the same post and carrying out the same work are being treated differently only for the mere reason that one is accredited and the other is not; it reads that "there is no parity and it is violative of Article 14".

The PIL-petitioner has said that the State Government-Respondent has arbitrarily and illegally discriminated and excluded. As per the 2020 amendments to the Rajasthan State Accredited and Non-Accredited Journalist Medical Facilities Scheme 2020, non accredited journalists are brought within the welfare schemes for journalists. However, the same has not been reflected in giving them the status of covid warrior/frontline workers to claim ex-gratia compensation amidst the raging pandemic.

The petition also gives the example of The Rajasthan State Accredited Journalists Cashless Mediclaim Facility Scheme, 2018, which makes a similar differentiation between accredited and non-accredited journalists for a medical insurance scheme.

The PIL-petitioner also puts forth Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, where the non-accredited journalists are considered frontline workers. The State of Odisha provides for an ex-gratia of Rs.15,00,000 to the next of kin in the event of death to journalists, without specifying whether it is available to all journalists or the accredited journalists. Madhya Pradesh recently announced free medical treatment to both accredited and non accredited journalists and their family members if the COVID-19 virus has infected them. The State of Bihar has announced all accredited journalists and the non accredited journalists authenticated by the District Public Relations officer from print, electronic, and web media to be considered frontline workers.

"Non accredited journalists/media persons have legitimate expectations from the Government to be treated equally with the accredited journalist/media person. It is the duty of the Respondent to look and make laws that provide equality among the same nature of people."

The petition discusses the case of Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration (1959) and State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) to argue that there exists no reasonable classification or intelligible differentia between accredited and non-accredited journalists.