Introduction
South Asia rarely performs well in global press freedom rankings, and the latest World Press Freedom Index is no exception. Released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in April 2026, the 25th edition of the index paints the bleakest global picture since its inception in 2001. More than 52.2 per cent of the 180 countries assessed are now classified as either ‘difficult’ or ‘very serious’ for journalism, while less than 1 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries enjoying ‘good’ press freedom conditions.
Within South Asia, the picture is equally troubling. Nepal, ranked 87th, is the region’s best performer and the only country classified as ‘problematic’. It is followed by Sri Lanka (134th), rated ‘difficult’, while Bhutan (150th), Bangladesh (152nd), Pakistan (153rd) and India (157th) all fall into the ‘very serious’ category. Afghanistan, at 175th, remains among the world’s worst performers. These rankings deserve attention. Yet they reveal only part of the story.
Global indices are designed to measure present conditions. They are less effective at capturing reforms that may take years to influence everyday realities. Legislative changes, judicial interventions, institutional restructuring and civil society initiatives rarely produce immediate improvements in rankings, even though they often lay the groundwork for future progress.
That distinction is particularly important in South Asia. Across the region, governments, legislatures, courts and media organisations have introduced reforms aimed at strengthening legal protections for journalists, modernising outdated media laws and creating mechanisms for greater accountability. Many of these initiatives remain incomplete, contested or unevenly implemented. Even so, they point to a region that is not simply standing still.
Understanding South Asia’s press freedom landscape, therefore, requires looking beyond the rankings. The region continues to face serious challenges, but it is also witnessing institutional changes that deserve equal attention.
India: A Democratic Contradiction
No South Asian country illustrates the complexity of measuring press freedom more vividly than India. According to the 2026 RSF World Press Freedom Index, India ranks 157th, continuing a decline from 142nd in 2021. The deterioration has been steady and cannot easily be dismissed. Yet rankings alone do not capture the scale, diversity or institutional complexity of India’s media landscape.
India possesses one of the world’s largest and most competitive media ecosystems. The number of registered publications increased from 60,143 in 2004-05 to 1.54 lakh (154,000) in 2024-25, an expansion of more than 150 per cent that reflects both the country’s linguistic diversity and the enormous reach of its print media.
Institutionally, significant reforms have also taken place. The Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023, replaced the colonial-era legislation of 1867, creating a modern regulatory framework and redesignating the Registrar of Newspapers for India as the Press Registrar General of India.
The Right to Information Act, 2005, continues to serve as one of the country’s most important democratic safeguards. By granting citizens access to information held by public authorities, it has strengthened transparency, promoted accountability and provided investigative journalists with a powerful legal instrument.
Support mechanisms for journalists have also evolved. The Journalist Welfare Scheme, revised in 2019, provides financial assistance of up to Rs. 5 lakh to families of deceased journalists facing financial hardship. It also provides up to Rs. 3 lakh for the treatment of serious illnesses and up to Rs. 2 lakh for journalists who sustain serious injuries in accidents.
By 2023, the scheme had benefited 298 recipients, with Government expenditure reaching approximately Rs. 13.43 crore. India’s judiciary has likewise acted as an important constitutional safeguard. The Supreme Court stayed the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, suspending measures that critics argued would have significantly expanded the Government’s authority over digital content.
India’s media environment also highlights the limits of relying on a single international index. Different organisations employ different methodologies and therefore reach different conclusions. Freedom House, whose assessment covers political rights, civil liberties, the rule of law, electoral processes, associational freedoms and media conditions, assigns India an overall score of 62 out of 100.
On the narrower indicator of Freedom of Expression and Belief, India scores 2 out of 4. While acknowledging mounting concerns over press freedom, the organisation also notes that important sections of India’s private media remain vibrant, continue to conduct investigations and scrutinise those in power.
This apparent contradiction is central to understanding India’s position. On one hand, concerns over media freedom have grown, contributing to the country’s declining international ranking. On the other hand, India’s democratic institutions continue to provide important counterweights. An independent judiciary, constitutional protections, a politically diverse media landscape, an active civil society and investigative journalism continue to create space, albeit contested space, for public scrutiny and dissent.
India, therefore, represents neither a simple success story nor an uncomplicated failure. It is a democracy in which institutional resilience and growing concerns over media freedom coexist. Understanding that tension is essential to any balanced assessment of the country’s press landscape.
Pakistan: Laws Ahead of Reality
Pakistan’s press freedom record is often summarised through grim statistics. Between April 2025 and March 2026, at least 125 verified violations against journalists were documented, with legal harassment and physical violence accounting for nearly two-thirds of all recorded cases.
Those figures are alarming. Yet they tell only part of Pakistan’s recent story. In legislative terms, Pakistan has introduced some of South Asia’s most significant protections for journalists. The Sindh Protection of Journalists and Other Media Practitioners Act, 2021, became the region’s first provincial law dedicated specifically to safeguarding media professionals when it was passed by the Sindh Assembly on 28 May 2021. The legislation emerged from sustained advocacy by journalist unions, human rights organisations and provincial lawmakers determined to address the vulnerability of media workers.
The momentum continued at the national level. On 8 November 2021, Pakistan’s National Assembly enacted the Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act, 2021, the country’s first federal law designed exclusively to protect journalists. Together, the two Acts established a legal framework intended to provide remedies for journalists facing threats and violence while challenging the longstanding culture of impunity surrounding attacks on the media.
Implementation followed, albeit gradually. In 2022, Sindh operationalised its legislation by establishing the Commission for Journalists and Other Media Workers, the first body of its kind in Pakistan. Chaired by a former judge, the Commission includes representatives from the Home, Law and Human Rights Departments, creating an institutional mechanism to address complaints from media professionals.
Further reforms followed. In July 2025, Pakistan’s legislature approved comprehensive amendments to the federal Act, strengthening legal protections and improving the welfare and working conditions of journalists. Under the revised law, attacks on media workers can attract prison sentences of up to seven years or fines of PKR 300,000.
Earlier, in April 2025, the Pakistan Press Foundation had issued detailed guidelines to help journalists make effective use of both the federal legislation and the Sindh Act. These developments coincided with a modest improvement in Pakistan’s international standing. The country rose from 157th in the 2022 RSF Index to 153rd in 2026.
None of this suggests that Pakistan’s press freedom crisis has been resolved. The gap between legal reform and conditions on the ground remains considerable, and implementation of the federal legislation itself was delayed by nearly four years. Nevertheless, the significance of these laws should not be underestimated. Passed unanimously by Parliament, they provide journalists, civil society and international watchdogs with a clear legal benchmark against which governments can now be held accountable.
Bangladesh: Reform After Political Upheaval
No South Asian country has experienced a more dramatic shift in its media landscape in recent years than Bangladesh. Whether that transformation ultimately delivers lasting press freedom remains uncertain, but it has already triggered one of the region’s most ambitious reform agendas.
The turning point came with political upheaval. After weeks of nationwide protests, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned and left the country on 5 August 2024, bringing to an end her 15-year tenure, a period frequently criticised for censorship, media concentration and the use of the controversial Digital Security Act against journalists and dissenting voices. Her departure ushered in an interim administration led by Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, who identified media reform as one of his government’s early priorities.
In November 2024, the interim administration established an 11-member Media Reform Commission, chaired by a senior journalist, to recommend a comprehensive overhaul of Bangladesh’s media laws and regulatory framework.
Reform efforts were accompanied by an attempt to gauge public opinion. The National Media Opinion Survey, conducted by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) between 1 and 7 January 2025, collected responses from more than 45,000 households across all 64 districts. Nearly 47.22 per cent of respondents believed journalists could not report freely in the country, underlining the scale of public concern over media independence.
The findings prompted fresh legislative initiatives. The interim government began work on a proposed Journalist Protection Law aimed at strengthening legal safeguards for journalists and media organisations. It also announced the creation of an independent Bangladesh Media Commission, which has since entered an active consultative and policy-making phase.
Another important step came with the adoption of the Cyber Security Ordinance, 2025, which removed or amended several provisions inherited from the Digital Security Act and its successor, the Cyber Security Act, both of which had drawn sustained criticism from press freedom advocates.
The cumulative impact of these reforms was reflected in Bangladesh’s performance in the RSF Index. Between 2024 and 2025, the country climbed 16 places, from 165th to 149th, while its overall score improved from 27.64 to 33.71. It was one of the largest single-year improvements recorded by any South Asian country in recent years.
Yet optimism remains tempered by uncertainty. Following the election of a Bangladesh Nationalist Party government, questions persist over whether the reform agenda initiated by the interim administration will be carried through in full. Although the new government has pledged to continue improving media freedom, the extent of its commitment had yet to become clear by February 2026.
Bangladesh’s reform process, therefore, remains unfinished. Implementation will determine whether recent legislative and institutional changes become lasting guarantees of press freedom or remain aspirations on paper. Even so, the country possesses a stronger institutional foundation for future reform than at any point in the past decade.
Nepal: Constitutional Strength Meets Practical Challenges
Among South Asian nations, Nepal stands apart. Ranked 87th in the 2026 RSF World Press Freedom Index, it is the region’s highest-performing country, standing 65 places ahead of Sri Lanka, its nearest regional neighbour in the rankings. That lead reflects more than statistical fortune. It is rooted in constitutional guarantees, legislative safeguards and a long process of democratic consolidation following years of political conflict.
The Constitution of Nepal, 2015, guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press under Article 19, prohibiting censorship and ensuring that publications and broadcasters cannot be closed or seized solely because of their content.
Those constitutional protections are reinforced by the Working Journalists Act, which provides safeguards relating to employment and professional rights, while broader constitutional and criminal procedure provisions protect journalists’ right to a fair trial.
Nepal has also sought to modernise its public broadcasting system. In September 2024, Parliament passed the long-awaited Public Service Broadcasting Act, transforming Radio Nepal and Nepal Television into the National Public Service Broadcasting Agency with the stated objective of strengthening democratic values and promoting the principles of an independent press.
International engagement has complemented domestic reform. UNESCO organised discussions with members of Nepal’s National Assembly on the proposed Social Media Bill 2081 on 5 and 6 February 2025, encouraging lawmakers to consider international standards while framing new legislation.
Earlier, on 1 and 2 March 2024, UNESCO Nepal and the Inter-Parliamentary Union jointly organised a workshop for parliamentarians to review emerging media and communication issues, including Nepal’s obligations under international human rights frameworks.
These initiatives illustrate Nepal’s willingness to engage with evolving global standards on media regulation. They also help explain why the country continues to outperform its regional neighbours.
Yet rankings alone do not tell the whole story. According to the Federation of Nepali Journalists, 131 incidents of press freedom violations were recorded during 2025, demonstrating that legal guarantees do not automatically translate into protection on the ground.
Nepal’s experience highlights an important lesson for the region. Strong constitutional protections are indispensable, but they are only as effective as the political will and institutional capacity behind their enforcement. Sustaining Nepal’s regional leadership will therefore depend not only on preserving legal safeguards but also on ensuring that those safeguards continue to protect journalists in practice.
Sri Lanka: Reform Through Democratic Renewal
Sri Lanka’s recent press freedom journey has been shaped by political change. The election of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in September 2024 raised expectations that the country would reassess laws widely criticised for restricting freedom of expression.
Those expectations were reflected in the election manifesto of the National People’s Power (NPP) coalition, which pledged to amend provisions of the controversial Online Safety Act, 2024, affecting freedom of expression and to review existing media legislation with a stronger commitment to press freedom.
The coalition secured an overwhelming parliamentary mandate in November 2024, winning 159 of the 225 seats, or about 70 per cent of Parliament, giving the Government considerable political space to pursue legislative reform.
Its record since then has been one of cautious but measurable progress. Towards the end of 2024, the Government announced that the Online Safety Act would not be implemented in its original form. In January 2025, it committed to introducing amendments following a public consultation process.
Earlier amendments approved by Parliament in August 2024 had already introduced safeguards on intermediary liability and revised provisions on criminal penalties for online speech. The reform process continued in May 2025, when the Government approved another round of amendments.
Public participation formed an important part of this exercise. In August 2025, the Ministry of Justice invited comments and recommendations from citizens as well as local and international media organisations.
During the same month, the Government constituted a special review committee headed by the Solicitor General, with representatives from the Attorney General’s Department, the Ministry of Justice, the Public Security Department, media organisations and the Criminal Investigation Department.
Sri Lanka continues to grapple with severe economic and political challenges. Yet its willingness to subject a controversial media law to an open and consultative review process reflects an important shift in governance. Whether that process ultimately delivers stronger press protections will depend on the substance of the final legislation rather than the intent behind it.
Bhutan: A Small Media Sector Under Pressure
Bhutan presents one of the most striking statistical reversals in South Asia’s press freedom landscape. The country fell from 30th place in the 2022 RSF World Press Freedom Index to 90th in 2023, 147th in 2024 and 152nd in 2025, before registering a modest improvement to 150th in 2026.
Yet Bhutan’s response to this decline is noteworthy. Rather than dismissing the deterioration, the country’s legislative institutions and media bodies have acknowledged the challenges and initiated a process of institutional review.
During its 34th Session in November 2024, Bhutan’s National Council urged the Government to review key legislation, including the Information, Communications and Media Act 2018 and the Copyright Act 2001, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose in an increasingly digital media environment.
The Council also recommended a reassessment of the Media Council, established under the Information, Communications and Media Act of Bhutan, 2018, but rendered inactive after 2022. It further proposed the creation of a high-level committee comprising government agencies, media representatives and civil society organisations to prepare a five-year strategy for strengthening the media’s contribution to democratic governance.
Bhutan’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has also sought to address structural weaknesses within the country’s media sector. Its report, Assessment of Corruption Vulnerabilities and Integrity in the Media Sector, was the first systematic attempt to examine corruption risks and ethical vulnerabilities affecting Bhutanese journalism.
The report found that many media organisations operate with limited staff and fragile financial resources, leaving them heavily dependent on government advertising, a dependence that can undermine editorial independence.
To mitigate these risks, the ACC recommended stronger safeguards within media organisations and regulatory bodies such as Bhutan InfoComm. It also called for the full implementation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) introduced in 2023 to improve public access to government-held information.
Bhutan’s experience demonstrates that declining rankings need not lead to institutional paralysis. They can also become a catalyst for reform.
Conclusion: Looking Beyond the League Table
The World Press Freedom Index remains one of the world’s most influential indicators of media freedom. Its findings deserve careful attention. The 2026 Index, like the 2025 edition before it, confirms that journalism is operating under growing pressure across much of the world, not only in South Asia. The global average score has fallen to its lowest level since the index was launched a quarter of a century ago, underscoring the scale of the challenge.
South Asia reflects that wider trend. Most countries in the region continue to occupy the lower reaches of the global rankings, and journalists still face censorship, legal intimidation, violence and political pressure. These realities cannot be ignored or minimised. But neither should the region’s reform efforts.
Pakistan has established legal protections for journalists that did not exist only a few years ago. Bangladesh has begun dismantling some of its most restrictive media laws while creating new institutions to guide future reform. Nepal continues to strengthen constitutional and legislative safeguards even as it grapples with persistent violations on the ground. Sri Lanka has chosen consultation rather than confrontation in reviewing controversial media legislation. India remains a complex democracy where institutional checks continue to coexist with growing concerns over press freedom. Bhutan, despite its declining ranking, has responded by examining the structural weaknesses within its own media ecosystem.
These developments do not invalidate the RSF rankings, nor do they suggest that South Asia’s press freedom problems have been solved. They simply illustrate a reality that league tables alone cannot fully capture: reform is a process rather than an event, and institutional change often precedes measurable improvements in international rankings.
The most meaningful assessment of press freedom therefore lies not only in where countries stand today, but also in the direction in which they are moving. Judged solely by their rankings, South Asia’s media landscape appears uniformly bleak. Judged by the legislative reforms, judicial interventions, institutional innovations and civic engagement unfolding across the region, the picture is more nuanced.
The challenge for South Asian governments is no longer merely to promise reform. It is to ensure that the institutions they have created, the laws they have enacted and the commitments they have made translate into genuine protection for journalists and a freer environment for independent media. Only then will progress on paper be matched by progress in practice.
(Sachin Yadav is a research scholar in International Studies at Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, His research focuses on India’s strategic partnerships, South Asia, India’s neighbourhood and geoeconomics)
