SRINAGAR: The District Information Office (DIO) Shopian has issued a comprehensive checklist mandating journalists to submit extensive personal and professional documentation for verification and authentication, following a broader directive from the Joint Director Information, Kashmir, aimed at curbing the misuse of media credentials across the Kashmir Division.
The Shopian directive comes in response to an October 31, 2025, order issued by Syed Shahnawaz Bukhari, Joint Director Information, Kashmir, which cited "repeated complaints" about individuals posing as journalists without formal accreditation and allegedly engaging in blackmail, extortion, coercion of officials, and circulation of unverified and defamatory material.
Under the new authentication requirements, journalists in Shopian must provide Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and official identification documents, along with appointment or affiliation letters from their media organisations. The requirements extend to detailed contact information of parent organisations, including full addresses, email addresses, and WhatsApp numbers.
The authentication process further requires journalists to submit salary statements covering the previous six months and academic qualification certificates. For digital media practitioners, additional requirements include providing links to their Facebook, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram pages for official verification, along with the name of the digital channel or news portal they represent.
Crackdown on "Fake Journalists"
The Joint Director's October 31 directive to all District Information Officers (DIOs) in Kashmir Division outlined a series of measures to combat what it described as widespread misuse of media identity. The order specifically mentioned that some individuals had been "apprehended and booked for extortion and misuse of media identity," emphasizing the gravity of the problem.
The directive mandates DIOs to maintain and regularly update verified lists of accredited media persons in consultation with DIPR and media houses, share press releases and official briefings only with verified journalists through email or social media, report any misuse of media credentials or attempts to malign officials or institutions, coordinate with Deputy Commissioners and police authorities for legal action against impersonators, require district offices to verify credentials before granting access or sharing information, submit periodic vigilance reports on incidents and preventive measures.
Additionally, the directive calls on media houses to exercise due diligence when engaging correspondents and freelancers, take action against representatives involved in unethical practices, and publicly disassociate from individuals misusing their credentials.
Legitimate Concerns vs. Press Freedom
The government's concern about media impersonation and credential misuse represents a legitimate challenge not only for the administration but also for professional journalists. Instances of individuals falsely claiming media affiliation for personal gain or to engage in extortion undermines both governance and genuine journalism.
However, the response, exemplified by Shopian's 10-point checklist, raises critical questions about proportionality. While the original directive focuses on preventing impersonation, the implementation mechanisms create a comprehensive surveillance and control apparatus over all working journalists, not just suspected imposters.
The Shopian checklist goes significantly beyond the original directive's intent. While the Joint Director's order emphasizes maintaining verified lists and preventing impersonation, Shopian's requirements for six months of salary statements, comprehensive social media links, and extensive personal data create barriers that affect all journalists, including legitimate ones.
The collection of Aadhaar (biometric ID), PAN (tax identification), salary statements, WhatsApp numbers, and social media profiles creates an unprecedented database of personal, financial, and digital information.
This aggregation raises several concerns about data security. How will this sensitive information be stored and protected? Could this data be used for purposes beyond authentication? Does comprehensive social media monitoring serve authentication or enable content surveillance?
Apart from the privacy concerns, many journalists, particularly those working part-time, volunteering, stringers or freelancing will face significant hurdles in providing regular salary statements and single-organisation affiliation letters, despite being legitimate media practitioners. Those working for multiple outlets or on irregular arrangements may struggle to meet documentation requirements.
The digital journalists will be particularly vulnerable as their platforms may lack traditional institutional structures, and their entire digital footprint becomes subject to official scrutiny.
The barriers thus being raised may effectively prevent newcomers from entering the profession, creating a closed system that favours established players.
The Chilling Effect
Beyond the challenges of the practicality of this gatekeeping mechanism, this will create a chilling impact on journalists whose personal details, biometrics and social media history would be under absolute scrutiny. It will also increase the dependency on official recognition. Instead of ensuring the independence of the journalist, it will create incentives to maintain favourable relationships with accreditation authorities.
While the Shopian checklist is being widely criticized within the journalistic circles, the original directive of the Joint Director Information, even though hailed by the Jammu and Kashmir Accredited Journalists Association (JAKAJA), itself contains problematic elements that compromise press freedom and create infrastructure for potential surveillance and control, even before district-level implementation.
Government as Gatekeeper of Journalist Legitimacy
The directive establishes a system where government authorities determine who qualifies as a "bona fide" journalist. This creates an inherent conflict of interest, as the government becomes the arbiter of who can legitimately scrutinize and report on its own activities. In democratic systems, the press ideally operates independently of government control, serving as a check on power.
When government officials maintain "verified lists" of approved journalists and restrict official access and information flow to only those on approved lists, they acquire significant power over media operations.
The directive states that press releases, media invites, and official briefings should be "shared only with verified and recognized journalists/media outlets." While this may sound benign, it actually creates a dual system where journalists who fail to gain official recognition are excluded from routine government information that should be publicly accessible.
It is no secret that one of the ways in which the governments try to control the independent press is by blocking the flow of information. The order ensures that the government has the exclusive power to determine which journalists receive official communications and which are frozen out.
The instruction that "all district-level offices and departments within the district" should "verify credentials before allowing access or sharing information or hospitality" creates a comprehensive system where government information and access become conditional on official approval. This fundamentally alters the relationship between press and government.
In principle, government information should be publicly accessible, with restrictions limited to genuine security or privacy concerns. The directive inverts this, making access conditional on being on an approved list maintained by the Department of Information and Public Relations.
The implicit message is clear. Maintain good relations with the information department and district administration, or face obstacles in your work.
The directive repeatedly uses terms like "bona fide media persons," "verified and recognized journalists," and "credible allegations" without defining what these mean or establishing clear, objective standards for making such determinations. This vagueness creates discretionary power that can be wielded selectively.
What makes a journalist "bona fide"? Is it employment with a large media house, or does freelance work count? Do citizen journalists qualify? What about bloggers or social media commentators who perform journalistic functions? The absence of clear standards means District Information Officers possess sweeping powers in deciding who merits recognition.
What constitutes "credible allegations" that should trigger disassociation from a journalist? Are formal charges required, or do informal complaints suffice? Who evaluates credibility, and by what standards? This vagueness enables authorities to stigmatise journalists through unproven allegations while pressuring media houses to terminate their employment or affiliation.
The Surveillance and Monitoring Infrastructure
The directive establishes systematic monitoring of journalists and their activities in ways that create surveillance infrastructure even without explicit data collection requirements.
District Information Officers are instructed to "maintain and regularly update a verified list of accredited, authorised and bona fide media persons operating within the district." This requires ongoing tracking of journalists' movements, employment status, and activities. Who is working where, for whom, and on what stories becomes subject to bureaucratic monitoring and record-keeping.
The instruction to "keep a close watch" on media activity and "immediately report" any perceived misuse creates a system of active surveillance. District officials are directed to monitor not just confirmed cases of fraud but any activity that might constitute "misusing media credentials, indulging in coercion, or attempting to malign officials or institutions or private individuals."
The vague standard of "attempting to malign officials or institutions" and wide scope for ‘monitoring’ opens the door to surveillance of critical journalism itself.
What constitutes "maligning" officials or institutions? Critical reporting on corruption, incompetence, or policy failures could be characterised as malignment by officials who dislike scrutiny.
The directive thus creates a framework where aggressive investigative journalism or critical commentary becomes subject to official monitoring and potential reporting to authorities as problematic behavior.
Criminalising Journalism
The most concerning is the directive's emphasis on coordinating with "Deputy Commissioner and Police authorities" regarding journalists whose activities are deemed problematic. While genuine cases of extortion or fraud warrant law enforcement involvement, the directive creates a pathway for criminalising journalistic activities through the mechanism of impersonation allegations or claims of credential misuse.
The instruction to "provide full factual details to this office without delay" regarding suspected cases establishes a reporting chain that feeds information about journalists to central authorities. This creates a database of journalists who have come under official suspicion, regardless of whether allegations are substantiated.
The mere fact of being reported can damage a journalist's reputation and future access, even if no wrongdoing is proven.
The directive's framing obfuscates the difference between criminal fraud involving actual impersonation and extortion, and journalistic activities that officials find inconvenient or uncomfortable. By treating these as part of the same problem requiring police coordination, it opens the door to using law enforcement mechanisms against legitimate journalism.
Co-opting Media Houses
The directive's instructions to media houses amount to yet another overreach into editorial independence and industry self-regulation. Media organisations are told to "exercise due diligence while engaging correspondents, freelancers, or stringers" and to "engage only qualified, credible and verified correspondents." While due diligence is reasonable, the directive's context suggests that "verified" means verified by government authorities, effectively requiring media houses to employ only journalists approved by the state.
The instruction to "take disciplinary and legal action against any of their representatives found indulging in unethical or coercive practices" raises questions about what officials might characterize as "unethical practices." Will aggressive questioning of officials be deemed coercive? Will investigative journalism into corruption be labeled unethical?
According to the directive, media houses are instructed to "disassociate publicly from individuals misusing their organisation's name or credentials for personal gain" and to "refrain from lending legitimacy to individuals facing credible allegations of extortion or blackmail." This creates pressure on media organisations to terminate journalists based on allegations rather than proven misconduct, and to do so publicly, damaging the journalist's reputation and career.
The requirement for public disassociation is pernicious. It forces media houses to make public statements distancing themselves from journalists under official scrutiny, regardless of whether allegations are proven. This serves government interests by creating public perception of wrongdoing and by pressurising other media organisations not to employ journalists who do not enjoy official patronage.
Absence of Due Process and Appeal Mechanisms
The directive establishes monitoring, reporting, and coordination systems but contains no mention of due process rights, appeal mechanisms, or standards of evidence. A journalist reported to police authorities or removed from verified lists has no clear recourse. The directive mentions "credible allegations" but not investigations, findings, or opportunities for journalists to respond. This administrative system operates without the procedural protections that would exist in formal legal proceedings.
The Context
The directive must be understood within the broader context of media restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir, where journalists have faced various pressures and constraints. The directive formalises and systematises what may have been informal practices, creating official infrastructure for monitoring and controlling media activity.
By establishing verification systems, surveillance mechanisms, coordination with police, and pressure on media houses, it creates multiple leverage points for influencing coverage without resorting to crude censorship.
Though it is not known whether districts, other than Shopian, have issued similar invasive checklists, the original directive, explains why Shopian's extreme implementation was possible. The district wasn't necessarily misinterpreting the directive. It was following the directive's logic to its natural conclusion.
Have you liked the news article?