The debate over press freedom has taken an unexpected turn in Punjab, where several independent digital journalists have alleged that copyright complaints linked to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led to the removal or suspension of their Facebook pages. The controversy has raised a larger question: can copyright law become a tool to silence political criticism?
The allegations are particularly significant because AAP leaders, including party chief Arvind Kejriwal, have repeatedly spoken about freedom of expression and the alleged suppression of opposition voices by the central government.
On August 7, 2026, Kejriwal accused the Narendra Modi government of getting his Instagram account and the social media accounts of several journalists suspended during protests. He described such actions as an attack on democracy and fundamental rights.
But thousands of kilometres of political rhetoric can sometimes look very different from the ground reality of a state government. In Punjab, where AAP is in power under Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, journalists critical of the government say they have faced copyright complaints, police notices and other forms of pressure.
The allegations do not establish that every action against these journalists was unlawful. However, the pattern described by the affected reporters and highlighted in a report by The Reporters’ Collective has triggered serious concerns about the relationship between political power, social media platforms and independent journalism.
How the dispute began
Punjab’s digital journalism ecosystem changed dramatically during the farmers’ protests of 2020-21.
As many smaller journalists and local reporters felt that mainstream television and newspapers were not giving sufficient space to developments on the ground, they turned to Facebook and YouTube. Some built large audiences by publishing live videos, interviews, political analysis and ground reports from Punjab’s towns and villages.
Among the journalists mentioned in the controversy are Lok Awaaz TV, Maninderjit Singh Sidhu, RMB Television, Ratandeep Singh Dhaliwal and Parmeet Singh Bidowali.
Together, their Facebook pages reportedly had millions of followers.
Their growing influence also brought them into direct conflict with political establishments. Several of these journalists regularly criticised policies and decisions of the Bhagwant Mann government.
According to reporting cited in the supplied material, AAP began filing copyright complaints against content published by these journalists in 2025. Between January and April 2026, the party allegedly submitted dozens of copyright infringement complaints concerning videos and posts.
The complaints eventually contributed to Facebook removing or restricting the pages.
For independent journalists whose income depended heavily on social media advertising and monetisation, the impact went far beyond losing an online page. It threatened the financial survival of their small news operations.
The copyright question
At the heart of the controversy lies a deceptively simple question: who owns the images and videos showing politicians performing their public duties?
The journalists involved say AAP claimed copyright over photographs showing Bhagwant Mann, images from the Punjab Assembly and other political material used in news reports.
In one particularly unusual allegation, journalists Ratandeep Singh Dhaliwal and Parmeet Singh Bidowali reportedly used a press release issued by Sri Akal Takht Sahib. According to the account presented in the supplied material, AAP subsequently asserted a copyright claim over that content as well.
The dispute becomes more complicated when public officials, government institutions and political parties appear in the same piece of content.
A political party can own original campaign material, photographs, graphics and other creative works produced by or for the party. But that does not automatically mean every photograph of a party leader belongs to the political organisation.
Journalists argue that photographs and video footage connected to public events can be relevant to legitimate news reporting.
That distinction is central to the dispute.
Can copyright law affect news reporting?
Indian copyright law recognises certain exceptions for activities such as reporting current events, criticism and review. Section 52 of the Copyright Act contains provisions relating to fair dealing, although whether a specific use qualifies depends on the facts of each case.
The existence of a copyright claim, therefore, does not automatically establish infringement.
News organisations routinely use photographs, video clips, speeches and public statements while reporting on political developments. The legal question can depend on factors including the nature of the material, how much of it was reproduced, the purpose of its use and whether the use falls within a statutory exception.
This is why the Punjab controversy has attracted attention beyond the individual journalists involved.
If copyright complaints become a routine mechanism for removing political criticism, critics argue, the process could create a chilling effect even when the underlying legal claim is disputed.
The problem becomes more acute on platforms such as Facebook, where content can disappear before a journalist gets an opportunity to establish his or her case in court.
The Facebook problem
Social media platforms operate through large-scale automated systems and complaint mechanisms. Copyright complaints can trigger restrictions quickly, particularly when platforms seek to comply with legal requirements and protect themselves from liability.
For a small digital newsroom, however, losing a Facebook page can be devastating.
A page with hundreds of thousands of followers represents years of reporting, audience building and revenue generation. Once removed, rebuilding that audience from scratch may take years.
The journalists involved say this is exactly what happened to them.
According to the material cited in the supplied report, four of the five affected pages were eventually restored after The Reporters’ Collective raised questions with Meta. Meta reportedly told the organisation that the accounts had been removed in error and were subsequently restored.
That development is significant.
If a platform later determines that content or pages were removed incorrectly, it raises questions about the original complaints and the safeguards available to journalists before their work disappears.
One page belonging to Maninderjit Singh Sidhu, however, reportedly remained suspended because of a separate legal notice issued by Punjab Police. The matter was being challenged in court.
A dispute over Punjab Assembly footage
Another part of the controversy concerns images from the Punjab Assembly.
Sidhu reportedly published material showing AAP legislators during proceedings inside the Assembly. A copyright complaint was subsequently raised against the content.
The journalists’ argument was straightforward: the Punjab government itself broadcasts Assembly proceedings through official channels, and journalists use such publicly available material to report on political developments.
The question, therefore, is whether a political party can claim exclusive ownership over imagery connected with proceedings of a public legislative institution simply because its leaders appear in that footage.
The issue has wider implications for political journalism.
If political parties could claim proprietary rights over ordinary images of public officials, reporters could face increasing difficulty covering parliamentary and legislative activity without risking takedown notices.
That could turn an ordinary news report into a legal dispute.
The journalists’ qualification argument
AAP’s Punjab media operation has also questioned whether some of the affected individuals should be considered journalists.
According to the supplied material, Punjab AAP media in-charge Baltej Pannu argued that some of the individuals did not possess the required journalistic qualifications and suggested that action could be taken against people making what the party considered baseless allegations.
That argument has itself become controversial.
Journalism in India does not operate under a general rule requiring every person who reports news to possess a journalism degree. The constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression also extends beyond people holding professional journalism credentials.
The affected journalists have disputed AAP’s characterisation of them.
The supplied report states that three of the journalists have journalism degrees, while another is pursuing a journalism course. One of them had also interviewed Bhagwant Mann years before AAP formed the Punjab government.
The larger issue, however, goes beyond academic qualifications.
In the digital age, thousands of citizens produce news reports, interviews, videos and eyewitness accounts without working for traditional media houses. Whether one agrees with their reporting or not, dismissing criticism simply by questioning professional status raises a difficult question about who gets to participate in public debate.
Copyright complaints and police action
The controversy took another turn when police action entered the picture.
According to the supplied account, Punjab Police’s cybercrime division sent a legal notice concerning videos published by Maninderjit Singh Sidhu. The videos reportedly related to allegations surrounding a police lathi-charge on farmers in Bathinda.
The police argued that certain content targeted Bathinda’s SSP Jyoti Yadav.
The matter attracted additional political attention because Yadav is the wife of Punjab minister Harjot Singh Bains.
That connection does not by itself establish wrongdoing by the police or the government. Nevertheless, the circumstances have contributed to concerns among journalists about whether reporting critical of powerful officials can invite disproportionate legal scrutiny.
A functioning democracy requires allegations against public officials to be examined through evidence and due process. At the same time, journalists must also remain accountable for accuracy, fairness and responsible reporting.
The challenge lies in ensuring that legal mechanisms do not become substitutes for open public debate.
Another journalist faces multiple complaints
Ratandeep Singh Dhaliwal’s case illustrates how quickly online criticism can move into the legal system.
According to the supplied material, Dhaliwal published an analysis suggesting that AAP could deny tickets to a number of sitting legislators in the next election.
The video reportedly led to complaints being filed in several districts.
Dhaliwal subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The case demonstrates the pressure a small independent journalist can face when a single piece of political analysis results in complaints across multiple jurisdictions.
Even when a journalist ultimately succeeds in court, the process itself can become a burden.
Repeated police visits, legal expenses and the uncertainty surrounding one’s professional future can encourage self-censorship.
Why journalists say they stopped showing Bhagwant Mann
Perhaps the most striking consequence of the controversy is not the removal of individual Facebook pages but the fear it has allegedly created among smaller journalists.
According to the supplied account, some journalists began avoiding the use of Bhagwant Mann’s photographs altogether.
Some reportedly blacked out the Chief Minister’s face. Others used AI-generated sketches or alternative visual representations.
The symbolism is powerful.
A journalist covering the chief minister should ordinarily be able to show the chief minister.
If reporters begin hiding the face of a public official because they fear copyright complaints, the issue stops being merely about intellectual property. It becomes a question about the environment in which journalism operates.
This is precisely why the dispute deserves scrutiny from legal experts, media organisations and civil society.
AAP’s criticism of the Centre adds another layer
The controversy has become politically sharper because of AAP’s own public position on social media restrictions.
When Kejriwal speaks about his social media accounts being suspended or restricted, AAP presents such action as evidence of a wider threat to democratic freedoms.
That argument is legitimate to examine.
But the same standard should apply when allegations emerge against a government or political party in a state where AAP itself holds power.
Political parties cannot reasonably demand absolute protection for their own speech while treating criticism from journalists as something that should be suppressed.
The test of a party’s commitment to free expression is often not how it behaves when it is fighting the government, but how it behaves when it controls the government.
Earlier controversies involving Punjab media
The latest copyright dispute has also revived memories of earlier confrontations between the Punjab government and journalists.
In May 2023, Times Now Navbharat journalist Bhavana Kishore was arrested by Punjab Police while reporting in Ludhiana in connection with coverage surrounding the controversy over Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s official residence.
She faced serious criminal charges, including provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later granted her bail and reportedly criticised aspects of the police action.
The case became a national talking point over the treatment of journalists.
There have also been disputes involving government advertising.
According to the supplied material, newspapers including The Tribune, The Indian Express and Punjab Kesari faced allegations that government advertising was withheld after they published reports or criticism concerning government policies. Opposition parties and sections of the media community described such measures as pressure on press freedom.
The government, however, has its own right to respond to inaccurate reporting and can dispute news coverage through lawful means.
The central question is whether government power is being used to punish criticism rather than correct misinformation.
The December 2025 controversy
Another incident mentioned in the supplied material occurred in December 2025.
Some journalists reportedly published reports concerning the alleged misuse of a helicopter during Bhagwant Mann’s Japan visit. Punjab Police’s cybercrime unit subsequently registered an FIR against three journalists and an RTI activist.
The investigation later faced judicial intervention, with the High Court reportedly putting the proceedings on hold.
Again, the existence of an FIR does not prove guilt. Nor does a court’s intervention automatically establish that every allegation against the journalists was false.
But repeated confrontations between authorities and journalists can create an atmosphere in which reporters become cautious about pursuing stories involving powerful political figures.
That is where the concept of press freedom becomes more than a constitutional phrase.
The larger danger is self-censorship
The most serious consequence of pressure on journalists is often invisible.
A journalist who receives a legal notice may continue working. A reporter whose Facebook page is restored may continue publishing. A case may eventually end in court.
But another reporter watching all of this may decide not to publish the next story.
That decision never appears in statistics.
There is no headline announcing that a journalist decided not to investigate a government contract, question a minister or publish an uncomfortable photograph.
Yet that silent decision can be more damaging to journalism than an individual takedown.
This is why media freedom is not measured only by the number of journalists physically arrested. It also depends on whether reporters can investigate powerful institutions without fearing retaliation.
Where should the line be drawn?
There is an important distinction between legitimate copyright enforcement and the abuse of copyright mechanisms.
If a journalist reproduces copyrighted material without a valid legal basis, the copyright holder can seek remedies under the law.
Political parties, governments and public officials also have legitimate interests in protecting original creative material from unauthorised commercial use.
But news reporting serves a different purpose.
A photograph used to report on a political event is not necessarily equivalent to a commercial organisation reproducing that photograph for profit. Context, purpose and the manner of use matter.
That is why every complaint should be examined on its own merits rather than assuming that a copyright notice automatically proves infringement.
Platforms also need transparent appeal mechanisms so that journalists can challenge wrongful takedowns before losing their entire digital presence.
What the Punjab controversy means for digital journalism
Punjab’s experience reflects a much wider transformation in Indian journalism.
Traditional newspapers and television channels once controlled much of the news distribution system. Social media has changed that equation.
A reporter with a smartphone can now reach hundreds of thousands of viewers without owning a studio, printing press or television channel.
That democratisation has created opportunities for independent journalism, but it has also created new vulnerabilities.
Facebook, YouTube and other platforms effectively control access to audiences. A complaint, algorithmic decision or account suspension can suddenly destroy years of work.
Political parties understand this power.
So do governments.
The result is a new battlefield where censorship does not necessarily arrive in the form of a police order. Sometimes it arrives as a copyright notification, a platform strike, a legal notice or a monetisation suspension.
The real test of press freedom
AAP’s supporters may argue that the party has every right to defend itself against false accusations and misuse of its copyrighted material.
That principle is reasonable.
Critics, meanwhile, argue that repeated complaints against journalists who publish unfavourable coverage can have the practical effect of censorship, even when each individual complaint is presented as a legal matter.
Both arguments deserve examination through evidence rather than political slogans.
The real test is whether journalists can challenge those complaints, whether platforms conduct independent reviews, whether authorities act proportionately and whether courts remain accessible to those facing legal pressure.
The issue is therefore larger than AAP or the Bhagwant Mann government.
It concerns the basic relationship between political power and independent journalism in the digital age.
When politicians are in opposition, freedom of expression is an obvious political weapon. When they come to power, the same principle becomes a test of their democratic credibility.
For AAP, the contradiction is especially visible because its national leadership has positioned itself as a critic of alleged restrictions on political speech and social media.
If the allegations from Punjab are established, the party will face difficult questions about whether the standards it demands from others are also being applied to itself.
For journalists, meanwhile, the message is equally important: the fight for press freedom is no longer limited to protecting newspapers, television studios or reporters from physical intimidation. It now extends to algorithms, copyright systems, platform policies and the legal architecture of the internet.
And in that new environment, the most important question may not be who has the loudest voice.
It may be who still has the ability to speak after the copyright notices, police complaints and platform restrictions arrive.