Dozens of studies have concluded that free media coverage helps slow the spread of a pandemic. The Supreme Court of India does not seem to agree. In a vaguely worded order passed on the 31st of March, the Court directed the media to “refer to and publish the official version about the developments” relating to COVID-19. The order came in a petition filed by Alok Alakh Srivastava, a lawyer who espouses many causes. Mr. Srivastava has previously filed PILs seeking a court-monitored probe into the crash of Mirage aircraft, death penalty for the Nirbhaya convicts, mandatory death penalty in cases of rape of minors, protection for doctors etc. He has also filed sundry complaints seeking registration of FIRs against the likes of Manish Sisodia, Shehla Rashid and journalist Prashant Kanojia. In his most recent petition, Mr. Srivastava sought omnibus directions “to immediately redress the heart wrenching and inhuman plight of thousands of migrant workers.” Notably, the Petition made no complaint against the work done by media organizations. No relief was sought against them and none of them were made parties. In fact, the Petition stated that the pleadings were based on facts gathered from “news item published in various newspapers and news sites.” In response, the Union Government submitted a status report detailing out the steps taken by it to control the outbreak of COVID-19. The Union also submitted that “due to some fake and/or misleading news/social media messages, a panic was created”. This assertion was not backed by any evidence. Based on this, the Union sought a direction that no form of media (traditional or social), “publish or telecast anything without first ascertaining the true factual position from the separate mechanism provided by the Central Government.” In its order, the Court recorded its satisfaction with the steps taken by the government. It did not pass any orders to obviate the plight of migrant workers, but agreed with the Government’s assertion regarding fake news. The Court seems to have stopped just short of instituting a censorship mechanism. It has however directed the media to “ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic is not disseminated.” It has further directed the media to “refer to and publish the official version about the developments.” The official version is to be obtained from a daily bulletin that the government has undertaken to disseminate. The purport of the order is not clear. Does it imply that the media can publish only the government’s version and nothing else? Or has the Court directed the media to publish news only after it has been verified with the government? This lack of clarity blurs the line between reportage that is permitted and that which is prohibited. The result is a chilling effect on speech, as journalists unsure of what the law requires, begin to self-censor, in order to steer clear of legal trouble. This is exactly the sort of outcome that the Supreme Court deemed illegal in its celebrated judgment in Shreya Singhal’s case.