The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 13, sought the personal presence of a senior Delhi Police officer to explain allegations that journalists, including women journalists, were assaulted, manhandled and detained while covering recent protests in the national capital. The development came after Senior Advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a writ petition filed by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), seeking enforceable safeguards for journalists engaged in reporting protests and other events of public importance.
“We’d like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed, making it clear that the police would be required to answer the allegations. After Jaising informed the Court that advance notice had been given to the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice indicated that the petition would be listed on Thursday alongside the matter concerning the alleged police action.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also mentioned a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, alleging that the police had assaulted journalists in violation of the Supreme Court’s October 10 order protecting media personnel covering the protests from harassment. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh mentioned a similar petition.
The NWMI’s petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, brings a distinct constitutional question before the Court: whether journalists can be physically restrained, detained or removed while documenting the exercise of State power, without a specific legal basis and without demonstrable necessity. It argues that the issue extends beyond the treatment of individual reporters to the institutional freedom of the press and the public’s right to receive information about events unfolding in public spaces.
A fresh petition following repeated allegations of police action against journalists
The petition, filed on October 12, places the alleged incidents within a sequence of protests, police restrictions and judicial interventions in Delhi during October 2026. It records allegations of journalists being detained despite displaying press identification, physically dragged or pushed, transported away from reporting locations and, in some instances, prevented from documenting police action.
The immediate context includes demonstrations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. According to the petition, restrictions imposed around the protests affected journalists’ access to the sites, their ability to observe police operations and their capacity to transmit contemporaneous reports, photographs and recordings.
The petition refers to reports concerning journalists associated with Scroll, Newslaundry, Reuters, Business Standard, BOOMLive, The Quint, The News Minute, The Indian Express and other media organisations. It also recounts allegations that journalists were detained at locations removed from the protest site, notwithstanding their professional identification, and that some were transported to police facilities before being released.
These accounts form the factual basis of the petitioner’s case; they are allegations and reported incidents that require examination and verification. The constitutional question raised, however, is not confined to whether a particular detention was justified. It concerns the standards that must govern police conduct towards journalists when public-order measures are being implemented and the press is attempting to document those very measures.
The petition argues that the distinction between a protester and a journalist cannot be erased merely because both are present in the same public space. A journalist’s proximity to a demonstration may be necessary to observe, record and verify events. Treating that proximity as sufficient grounds for detention or forcible removal, it contends, risks converting the act of reporting into a basis for coercive State action.
Women journalists and the question of bodily integrity
The petition places particular emphasis on allegations involving women journalists, including physical handling, dragging, detention and confinement while they were performing their professional duties. It refers to complaints made by three women journalists alleging sexual harassment by Delhi Police personnel during demonstrations near Jantar Mantar on October 3. According to the petition, Delhi Police acknowledged receipt of the complaints and referred them to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The National Human Rights Commission subsequently took suo-motu cognisance of the reported allegations and sought a detailed report from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
The NWMI argues that these incidents must be considered alongside subsequent reports of women journalists being physically handled or detained while covering protests on October 10 and 11. It contends that the treatment of women journalists raises concerns not only about press freedom but also about bodily integrity, dignity, personal liberty and their equal ability to participate in the profession.
The petition’s emphasis on women journalists is not merely a request for a gender-specific administrative precaution. It places their safety within the constitutional framework of equality and dignity. Physical coercion, intimidation or arbitrary confinement, the petitioner argues, can impair a journalist’s ability to work on equal terms and create a particular chilling effect on women reporting from public spaces.
The reliefs sought therefore extend beyond a general prohibition on interference with journalists. NWMI seeks specific safeguards against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal of women journalists engaged in bona fide newsgathering, including where their presence at or proximity to a protest is the only apparent basis for the action.
Supreme Court’s earlier direction and allegations of continued interference
A central feature of the petition is the Supreme Court’s order dated October 11, passed in connected proceedings concerning restrictions and alleged illegal detentions during the protests. According to NWMI, the Court recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General that journalists, lawyers and other professionals would not be impeded in discharging their professional duties.
Paragraph 16(f) of the order states: “Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”
The petition argues that this direction must operate as an effective safeguard on the ground, rather than remain confined to an assurance given before the Court. It alleges that journalists continued to face detention, coercive removal and obstruction despite the direction, including incidents in which reporters displayed press identification but were nevertheless placed in police vehicles or taken away from reporting locations.
The petitioner’s case is that the continuation of such incidents exposes the limits of a general judicial direction when it is not accompanied by a clear operational framework. Without defined procedures, accountability mechanisms and preservation of evidence, the petition contends, compliance may depend on the discretion of individual officers rather than an enforceable institutional obligation.
This is also the basis on which NWMI distinguishes its petition from the existing proceedings concerning restrictions on transport, alleged illegal detention and contempt. It argues that those proceedings do not comprehensively settle the standards governing police interaction with journalists or provide forward-looking safeguards against a recurrence of the alleged conduct.
The petition consequently asks the Court to move beyond reiterating the general principle that journalists must not be obstructed and to establish a framework that specifies how that protection is to be implemented, monitored and enforced.
Article 19(1)(a): Press freedom begins before publication
The principal constitutional argument concerns Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. NWMI contends that this freedom cannot be confined to the final act of publishing a report. It must also protect the processes through which information is obtained, observed, documented, verified and communicated.
The argument is significant because reporting on protests and police action depends upon access to the places where events unfold. If journalists are prevented from witnessing detentions, dispersals or crowd-control operations, their ability to report on the exercise of public power is impaired before a story can even be written or published. The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s press-freedom jurisprudence, including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Sakal Papers v. Union of India, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India and Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. It also invokes Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh in support of its broader constitutional submissions.
Drawing on this line of authority, NWMI argues that freedom of the press encompasses the ability to gather and disseminate information concerning matters of public importance, alongside the public’s corresponding interest in receiving that information. The petition’s central proposition is that a journalist cannot report what the State prevents her from witnessing. Where police action obstructs newsgathering, the resulting injury is not limited to the reporter’s professional inconvenience; it may also deprive the public of information necessary to scrutinise the conduct of public authorities.
The petitioner accordingly argues that observation cannot be equated with participation. The mere presence of a journalist near protesters, possession of recording equipment, questioning of officials or documentation of police action cannot, by itself, justify detention or forcible removal.
Articles 14 and 21: Arbitrariness, liberty and dignity
NWMI also invokes Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Under Article 14, the petition challenges the alleged indiscriminate treatment of journalists and protesters as interchangeable categories, without an individualised assessment of the circumstances or the legal basis for restricting a journalist’s movement. It contends that coercive action unsupported by a specific legal justification, recorded necessity or proportionate response is arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.
The Article 21 challenge addresses the consequences of physical handling, assault, intimidation, detention and confinement. The petition argues that these actions implicate bodily integrity, dignity and personal liberty, particularly where women journalists are concerned.
Article 19(1)(d), which protects the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, forms another part of the challenge. NWMI contends that transporting journalists away from reporting locations or preventing them from accessing public spaces can interfere with their freedom of movement as well as their ability to carry out professional duties.
Read together, the four constitutional guarantees form the foundation of the petition’s case: police action against journalists must have a lawful basis, must not be arbitrary or disproportionate, and must not needlessly impair their ability to report on matters of public importance. The petition does not claim that journalists are exempt from generally applicable laws or lawful crowd-control measures. Rather, it seeks to prevent their professional activity from being treated, without more, as grounds for coercive action.
An independent inquiry and preservation of police records
Among the petition’s most consequential prayers is a request for an independent, time-bound mechanism to investigate allegations of detention, physical violence, injury, coercive removal, intimidation and obstruction of journalists. NWMI seeks identification of the personnel involved, examination of individual and supervisory responsibility, and recommendations for disciplinary or other action in accordance with law. It also asks that the mechanism consider appropriate compensation and remedial measures.
The petition stresses that an inquiry cannot be effective if the evidence necessary to reconstruct the incidents is not preserved. It seeks strict and demonstrable compliance with the Supreme Court’s October 11 direction, including preservation and disclosure of records relating to incidents involving journalists from October 10 onwards.
The records specifically identified include CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police videography, wireless communications, duty rosters, deployment records, vehicle logs, detention records and medical records. The requested disclosure is intended to establish not merely whether a journalist was detained or injured, but also the circumstances in which the action occurred: who authorised it, which personnel participated, what directions were issued, what legal grounds were recorded, where the journalist was taken and whether any recording equipment or journalistic data was interfered with.
This demand for evidence preservation is central to the petition’s accountability argument. Where the alleged wrongdoers are public officials acting during crowd-control operations, an inquiry that does not independently establish the chain of events and responsibility may leave critical questions unanswered. NWMI therefore seeks a process capable of examining both the conduct of individual officers and the supervisory structure within which the alleged actions occurred.
Binding guidelines sought for police interaction with journalists
The petition asks the Supreme Court to frame, or direct the framing of, binding guidelines governing the interaction between police and media professionals during protests, public assemblies, crowd-control operations and other events of public importance. The proposed framework is intended to address the practical circumstances in which journalists encounter police personnel and to reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions at the scene.
Among the safeguards sought are:
- Identification of police personnel: Visible identification to enable officers involved in an incident to be identified and held accountable.
- Recognition of journalists: Recognition of press credentials without making formal accreditation the sole test of whether a person is engaged in bona fide journalistic activity.
- Standards governing force: Clear thresholds regulating the use of force against journalists performing professional duties.
- Recorded reasons for detention or removal: A requirement that coercive action be supported by specific, recorded and proportionate grounds.
- Access to assistance: Immediate access to legal counsel and the journalist’s editorial organisation.
- Medical assistance: Appropriate medical attention where injury or physical force is involved.
- Protection of equipment and data: Safeguards against interference with journalistic devices, recordings and other professional material.
- Evidence preservation: Retention of contemporaneous records necessary to investigate complaints and establish responsibility.
- Gender-specific safeguards: Protection of women journalists against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal while engaged in bona fide newsgathering.
The petition also seeks interim protection pending its final disposal, asking the Court to ensure that journalists are not assaulted, threatened, detained, transported, removed or otherwise obstructed except under authority of law and on a specific, recorded and proportionate basis.
The proposed safeguards would, if granted, address both immediate protection and the institutional procedures governing police conduct. They would also provide a framework against which future allegations could be assessed.
The constitutional question before the Court
The proceedings raise a question that extends beyond the immediate allegations arising from the Delhi protests: what practical protection does press freedom provide when journalists are attempting to document the actions of the authorities themselves?
The power to regulate assemblies and maintain public order does not, by itself, resolve the distinct question of how journalists may be treated while reporting on those measures. The NWMI petition argues that the exercise of such powers must remain subject to constitutional standards and that restrictions on journalists cannot rest merely on their presence near a protest or their attempt to record events.
Its demand is therefore both preventive and remedial. The petitioner seeks investigation into the incidents already reported, preservation of evidence, identification of those responsible and a binding framework intended to prevent similar allegations from recurring.
Detailed reports on the anti-EC protest may be read here, here and here.
Related:
Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security
Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC
Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission
Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls
Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy