Differentiating between accredited and non-accredited journalists for COVID-19 relief violates Article 14: Plea in Supreme Court

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking parity in treatment of accredited journalists and non-accredited journalists for the purposes of compensation and other benefits granted by the Central and state governments amid the COVID-19 pandemic..The intervention application (IA) assails the special drive under the Central government's Journalist Welfare Scheme (JWS) as it does not cover “non-accredited journalists”. It is thus violative of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the plea said. .Filed by Director of the of the Institute of Perception Studies Dr Kota Neelima, the plea stated that the Central government has still not declared journalists as frontline workers, whereas a few state governments have designated them as frontline workers for vaccine prioritization alone..The plea cited figures of journalists who passed away in the line of duty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between April 1, 2020 and May 19, 2021, there have been 253 verified deaths of journalists due to COVID-19 and 93 unverified deaths, the IA claimed..The Centre had launched a special drive under the JWS to aid the immediate families of those media journalists who died due to COVID-19. According to the guidelines under the scheme, accreditation details of the journalist have to be provided. These include the card number, validity and media organization (or freelance) on behalf of which the accreditation has been provided..Point 3(ii) (a) and (b) of the guidelines states that “media personnel” will not include persons employed at a managerial level or in a supervisory capacity. "This leaves a large number of persons including unaccredited journalists, technical, managerial and supervisory staff employed with media organizations along with unaccredited freelance journalists and stringers who are deprived of any relief or benefits under the scheme,” the plea said..It was further noted that there are journalists who are working with the same organization, one being accredited, and another being non-accredited at the same post or same designation and are performing the same duties." Thus, the requirement of accreditation, which is a prerequisite to obtain benefits under the scheme, has proved to be the largest obstacle for the journalists to avail the same," the IA stated..Moreover, as per Rule 6.1 of the guidelines, the eligibility conditions for correspondents/camera persons to avail the scheme are “minimum 15 years professional experience as a full-time working journalist,” among others.The applicant submitted that this leaves out a large number of journalists who will be not be given any benefits after dying in the line of duty due to COVID-19."The mere non-accreditation which is only a recognition provided by the Government for purposes of access to sources of information, he/she will not be covered under the scheme. Thus, it has no parity and is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India," the plea contended. .The applicant stated that she conducted a survey of 70 journalists/media persons who died of COVID-19 and found out that only 4 out of 70 (6 percent) media persons were accredited to the Press Information Bureau. 26 out of 70 (37 percent) were accredited to the state government and 40 out of 70 (57 percent) were without accreditation..“Mere technical difference between the accredited and non-accredited journalists/media person with respect to compensation and other benefits being provided by both the central and the state governments is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” it was stated..The plea also urged the Court to issue directions with regard to the ex-gratia amount being decided by the Central/state governments. It was prayed that a minimum amount may be fixed below which the governments cannot offer, so that there is a parity among all the states..The plea was settled by Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid and filed through advocate Lubna Naaz.