Munish Kumar Gaur
Advocate & Former Civil Servant

The annual “World Press Freedom Index” published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is frequently cited as an unquestionable measure of media freedom across nations. India has been ranked 157 out of 180 countries for freedom of Press according to their survey & mechanism surprisingly Afganistan & Pakistan are ahead of us . Yet, an increasing number of journalists, scholars and policy observers have raised concerns about its methodology, transparency and the subjective nature of many of its conclusions.

I fully agree with the observations made by senior journalist Palki Sharma, who recently questioned the credibility of the Index during an interview. When asked about India’s low ranking, she rightly pointed out that such rankings become difficult to accept at face value when countries under authoritarian regimes, including Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in an earlier edition, were placed above India. She also referred to other global rankings, such as the World Happiness Report, where countries facing severe political and economic turmoil have sometimes ranked above India. Her central argument was simple and persuasive: international indices should not be accepted blindly merely because they are produced by international organisations; their methodology deserves critical scrutiny.

Palki Sharma’s remarks have initiated an important debate. In a democracy, questioning any index is neither anti-democratic nor unreasonable. Every ranking must withstand the test of transparency, objectivity and verifiable evidence.


The World Press Freedom Index itself acknowledges that it is not based solely on measurable facts. According to RSF’s published methodology, the Index combines recorded incidents involving journalists with a qualitative assessment based on questionnaires answered by selected journalists, academics, researchers and human-rights specialists. It evaluates five broad indicators, political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context and safety. Many of these indicators inevitably involve subjective judgement rather than purely measurable data.

This reliance on expert perception has been one of the principal criticisms of the Index. Critics argue that the identities of respondents are not publicly disclosed, the weighting of qualitative responses significantly influences the final ranking, and independent verification of those perceptions is difficult. Others have questioned whether identical standards can fairly compare countries with vastly different constitutional systems, media markets and security challenges. These criticisms deserve thoughtful consideration, even though they do not automatically invalidate the Index.


India today is recognised by numerous international financial institutions and economists as one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies. Its economic performance is measured through quantifiable indicators such as GDP growth, industrial output, exports, digital infrastructure, tax collections and investment flows. These are hard statistical data subject to verification and international scrutiny. Such measurable achievements stand in contrast to perception-based indices that inevitably involve subjective assessments.


India also possesses one of the world’s largest and most diverse media ecosystems. Thousands of newspapers, hundreds of television channels, digital news platforms and millions of citizens freely express criticism of governments, both at the Centre and in the States, every single day. Political debates are intense, investigative reports are regularly published, governments are challenged in courts, and public institutions are subjected to continuous media scrutiny. These realities also deserve consideration while evaluating media freedom.


None of this suggests that India has no challenges. Violence against journalists, legal disputes, economic pressures on media organisations and issues relating to ownership concentration require continued attention. A mature democracy should always strive to strengthen press freedom while simultaneously ensuring responsible journalism and accountability.


However, international rankings should inspire informed discussion rather than unquestioning acceptance. No index should become the final certificate of a nation’s democratic health merely because it is published by an international organisation. Methodologies must remain open to criticism, assumptions must be debated and conclusions must be tested against observable realities.

Palki Sharma has rightly reminded us that critical thinking is an essential part of journalism. Whether one ultimately agrees or disagrees with the World Press Freedom Index, it is entirely legitimate to ask whether perception-based surveys should outweigh measurable realities and whether the methodology is sufficiently transparent to justify the authority often accorded to its rankings.

In a democracy, the credibility of any global index should rest not on its international label but on the transparency of its methodology, the robustness of its evidence and its willingness to withstand rigorous public scrutiny.