How Journalists Are Threatened and Killed in India

India averages two to three journalist killings per year attributable to their work — placing it among the world's most dangerous countries for media professionals. RSF's 2026 World Press Freedom Index confirms this pattern, documenting that journalist murders, physical attacks, coordinated online harassment, and legal harassment together constitute a threat environment that has chilled critical journalism in India. 

Between 2014 and 2019, 40 journalists were killed and at least 198 severe attacks on journalists were reported (CPJ/RSF data), with 36 attacks occurring in 2019 alone. 

More recently, Mukesh Chandrakar — a freelance journalist in Bijapur, Chhattisgarh — was found murdered in January 2025 after reporting on alleged corruption in a road construction project; his body was discovered in a decomposed state after he went missing following an investigation into local contractor networks.

Representational Visualisation: How Journalists Are Threatened and Killed in India

The profile of journalist murders in India is consistent: the victims are almost always local journalists in rural or semi-urban settings who have reported on local power — corruption in construction contracts, land grabs, police brutality, illegal mining, or timber networks. 

The perpetrators are typically local criminal-political networks whose illegal interests were threatened by the journalism. The systemic problem is impunity: criminal networks that control local economic activities can arrange killings with reasonable confidence that investigations will be ineffective, police will be uncooperative, and prosecution will never occur. RSF's call for "an end to impunity for crimes committed against journalists" and the proposal for "a protection mechanism" recognises that physical safety for Indian journalists requires changes in investigation and prosecution norms, not just legal provisions.

What You Need to Know

• RSF 2026 India: "with an average of two to three journalists killed due to their work every year, India is one of the world's most dangerous countries for media professionals"; RSF called for immediate investigation into the motives behind journalist attacks with journalistic work as the primary assumed motive.
• Mukesh Chandrakar murder (January 2025): freelance journalist found murdered in Bijapur, Chhattisgarh; had reported on alleged corruption in road construction contracts; body found in decomposed state; illustrates the pattern of rural journalists killed for exposing local corruption.
• Gauri Lankesh murder (September 2017): most high-profile journalist murder in recent years; Lankesh was a Bengaluru-based editor, secularist, and critic of Hindutva; shot dead by members of a Hindu nationalist group in her home; BBC described as "the most high-profile murder of a journalist in recent years"; several arrests made; trial ongoing; the killing prompted nationwide protests.
• Women journalists and online harassment: RSF documents "terrifying coordinated campaigns of hatred and calls for murder" particularly targeting women journalists, whose personal data (home addresses, phone numbers) is published by organised online harassment networks; this "doxxing" combined with threats of sexual violence creates a specific threat environment for women in journalism.
• UAPA and preventive detention as de facto detention: the 97.5% pretrial detention rate for UAPA arrests (2% conviction rate) means that arrest under UAPA is effectively imprisonment for years regardless of guilt; in Kashmir, journalists are detained under preventive detention provisions for months or years without trial.

How It Works in Practice

1. The local journalist vulnerability: National-level journalists in Delhi and Mumbai work in an environment with significant visibility protection — international colleagues, powerful lawyer networks, and media organisations with resources to respond to threats. Local journalists in Chhattisgarh, UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan — covering local corruption, illegal mining, land grabs, and criminal networks — lack these protections; they are killed with impunity because their deaths do not generate the media attention and political pressure that would demand accountability.

2. The contractor-journalist nexus: Many local journalist killings in India follow a specific pattern: a journalist investigates a contractor, politician, or criminal network that controls a local economic activity (road construction, mining, sand quarrying, land acquisition); the journalist publishes or is about to publish findings; the subject arranges a threat, assault, or killing through local criminal networks; the police investigation stalls or implicates the wrong persons. This pattern has been documented in dozens of cases across multiple states.

3. Online harassment as a parallel threat: For journalists who are nationally visible, the primary physical threat is not murder but coordinated online harassment. Specific journalists — female journalists particularly — receive death threats, rape threats, and coordinated trolling campaigns that RSF describes as "terrifying." The perpetrators are typically anonymous or pseudonymous accounts operating in coordinated networks that can be mobilised by political signals; in documented cases, affiliated accounts have targeted journalists who published critical content. The police have largely declined to investigate these campaigns.

4. The Gauri Lankesh case as a data point: The Lankesh murder investigation — which resulted in arrests and established a network of conspirators — provided rare legal accountability for journalist murder. The trial's ongoing process (till 2025) shows how slowly such cases move through India's courts; the delays in bringing conviction provide minimal deterrence for future perpetrators.

What People Often Misunderstand

• Journalist killings in India are overwhelmingly local, not national: The killings are almost never of nationally famous journalists by the central government; they are of local journalists by local power networks; the political dynamic is criminal-political nexus at the district or state level rather than central government assassination.
• Press freedom indices' "journalist killings" count includes questionable attribution: RSF's "two to three per year" figure reflects RSF's assessment that killings were related to journalism; not all included killings are unambiguously work-related; some may involve personal disputes that involved journalists who also did journalism; the figures should be treated as RSF's documented assessment rather than objective truth.
• Online harassment is a genuinely serious threat, not merely unpleasant: The doxxing of women journalists — publishing home addresses and phone numbers alongside death threats — creates physical danger as well as online intimidation; several Indian journalists have been physically attacked by people who found their addresses through online campaigns.
• India's criminal justice system's slowness affects journalist protection: When a journalist is murdered and the investigation takes 5–10 years to reach conviction (if ever), the deterrence effect on future perpetrators is minimal; improving journalist safety requires faster and more reliable criminal justice specifically for journalist murder cases.
• International attention provides some protection: High-profile international journalism awards and RSF/CPJ documentation of journalist cases creates some protection by making arrests and killings visible to international audiences, governments, and diplomatic contacts; this protection is stronger for journalists known internationally and weaker for the local journalists who face most physical danger.

What Changes Over Time

The RSF May 2025 press conference at the Press Club of India — calling for immediate release of journalists detained during Operation Sindoor, an end to impunity for crimes against journalists, and a formal journalist protection mechanism — represents the current state of international advocacy for Indian journalist safety. 

The BJP West Bengal government's first post-election media relationship will be closely watched: BJP had accused TMC of press restrictions; whether the new government improves or maintains press freedom in the state is a near-term test case.

Sources and Further Reading

• RSF — India country profile: https://rsf.org/en/country/india
• RSF — India press conference May 2025: https://rsf.org/en/india-rsf-calls-press-freedom-world-s-largest-democracy
• GIJN — Investigating India: https://gijn.org/stories/india-independent-news-investigating-key-election-year/
• Kashmir Media Service — Operation Sindoor crackdown: https://kmsnews.org/kms/2026/05/07/indias-unprecedented-crackdown-on-media-freedom-during-indo-pak-standoff-2025.html

(This series is part of a long-term editorial project to explain the structures, institutions, contradictions, and operating logic of governance in India for a global audience. Designed as a 25-article briefing cluster on the Indian Media Ecosystem & Journalism, this vertical examines how information is produced, distributed, consumed, regulated, and contested in contemporary India — from television news, newspapers, digital media, and public broadcasting to media ownership, press freedom, journalism ethics, advertising economics, misinformation, platform power, and the changing relationship between the media, the state, and the public. Written in accessible format for diplomats, investors, researchers, NGOs, civil society actors, students, academics, policymakers, and international observers, the series seeks to explain both how India’s media architecture is structured on paper and how journalism, influence, narrative formation, and public discourse actually function on the ground. This is Vertical 7 of a larger 20-vertical knowledge architecture being developed by IndianRepublic.in under the editorial direction of Saket Suman. All articles are protected under applicable copyright laws. All Rights Reserved.)