NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the presence of a senior Delhi Police officer on October 15 to explain allegations that women journalists were assaulted, intimidated and detained while covering protests in the national capital against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation after senior advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a petition filed by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), seeking safeguards for journalists covering protests and other public events.
The court said a senior police officer should remain present to assist it and explain the allegations. The matter is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, October 15, along with other petitions relating to police action and restrictions imposed during the demonstrations.
The allegations have brought renewed attention to the safety of journalists covering public protests and the responsibilities of law-enforcement agencies during crowd-control operations.
What are the allegations against Delhi Police?
The NWMI petition alleges that women journalists covering demonstrations on October 10 and 11 were subjected to physical handling, intimidation and arbitrary detention despite identifying themselves as members of the press and displaying valid press credentials.
The organisation has argued that journalists must be allowed to carry out legitimate reporting without being assaulted, forcibly removed or detained merely for being present at a protest site.
The petition seeks safeguards against alleged harassment and obstruction, along with clear procedures governing interactions between police personnel and journalists during demonstrations.
It has also sought an independent inquiry into the incidents and action against personnel found responsible for any misconduct.
These claims remain allegations placed before the court. The judicial proceedings will determine how the authorities respond and whether further directions or an investigation are warranted.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Dharna: Delhi Police Files FIR After Pellet-Gun Row
Supreme Court’s earlier directions on protest coverage
The latest intervention follows earlier Supreme Court proceedings concerning restrictions imposed around protests in Delhi.
The court had issued directions relating to the functioning of public transport and the need to ensure that peaceful protesters and professionals, including journalists and lawyers, were not obstructed from performing their duties.
Petitioners have alleged that police action against journalists during the demonstrations violated the spirit of those directions.
A separate contempt plea has also raised allegations that police personnel assaulted journalists despite the court’s earlier instructions concerning media coverage.
The Supreme Court has yet to determine the merits of these allegations. Its decision to seek the presence of a senior officer is intended to obtain an explanation and assist further consideration of the petitions.
Protests over voter-list revision trigger wider controversy
The dispute has emerged amid demonstrations led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), opposition parties and civil-society groups against the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The protesters have questioned the deletion of large numbers of names from voter lists and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revision is intended to improve accuracy by identifying deceased voters, people who have moved and other entries requiring verification. Opposition parties and activists have raised concerns about transparency and the risk of eligible voters being excluded.
The demonstrations have also prompted significant security deployments and restrictions in parts of the capital. Delhi Police has sought an extension of central security-force deployment, citing the possibility of further protests.
Press freedom and police accountability in focus
The case could have implications for how journalists are protected while covering protests, particularly when police are attempting to control crowds or enforce restrictions.
Media organisations argue that identifying oneself as a journalist should help distinguish legitimate newsgathering from participation in a demonstration. They have also called for clearer procedures to prevent arbitrary detention and ensure the safety of women reporters in the field.
Police authorities will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations during the proceedings. Any findings of misconduct, however, would depend on the evidence and the court’s assessment.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up the petitions on October 15. The hearing is expected to bring greater clarity on the police response, the safeguards sought by journalists and the court’s approach to protecting professional reporting during public demonstrations.
