PRESS FREEDOM UNDER JUDICIAL CHALLENGE: JOURNALISTS TAKE DELHI POLICE TO THE SUPREME COURT OVER DETENTIONS, ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AND SEIZED EQUIPMENT
October 14, 2026
The Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) has approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent, time-bound investigation into allegations that journalists were detained, manhandled and prevented from carrying out their professional duties during protests in New Delhi on October 10 and 11. The petition raises fundamental questions about press freedom, the constitutional protection afforded to independent reporters and the extent to which police can restrict journalistic activity during public demonstrations.
Filed on behalf of DUJ members and other affected journalists through advocate Shashank Singh, the writ petition alleges that reporters covering the demonstrations were forcibly removed from protest locations, prevented from recording events and, in certain cases, subjected to physical force. It also raises allegations that police personnel took away mobile phones, cameras and microphones, while women journalists faced invasive searches and inappropriate behaviour.
The petition seeks to place the conduct of law-enforcement personnel under judicial scrutiny, arguing that journalists must be able to report on public events without arbitrary interference. It maintains that the right to cover demonstrations cannot be made conditional on possessing a government-issued accreditation card or employment credentials from a recognised media organisation.
SENIOR JOURNALIST’S DETENTION BECOMES A KEY ELEMENT OF THE PLEA
The petition relies on a signed statement by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who alleged that police detained him on October 10 despite his showing them his Press Information Bureau (PIB) accreditation card. He claimed that he was not informed of the grounds for his detention and was not provided with any documentation explaining the action taken against him.
The DUJ has also cited a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which recorded at least 35 detentions of journalists in Delhi over the two days of protests. The union argues that these incidents raise concerns extending beyond individual encounters, pointing to the possibility of a broader restriction on the media’s ability to document public demonstrations.
The petition challenges the application of a Delhi Police advisory issued on October 5, alleging that it was used to prevent people without government accreditation or an employer-issued press card from reporting on the protests. The union contends that such a requirement would impose an unjustified barrier on journalists, particularly freelancers, independent reporters and those working outside established news organisations.
According to the petition, accreditation is primarily intended to facilitate access to designated official sources and institutions. It should not function as a general licence determining who is permitted to report from public places.
The DUJ argues that a journalist’s constitutional protection derives from the rights available to citizens, rather than exclusively from professional credentials. It maintains that independent journalists, freelance reporters and individuals publishing news through platforms such as YouTube are entitled to protection when lawfully gathering and reporting information, subject to reasonable and proportionate restrictions.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE CENTRE OF THE DISPUTE
The petition invokes Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, placing the allegations within the wider framework of equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, personal liberty and safeguards against unlawful detention.
Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, is particularly significant to the union’s argument. The petition contends that interference with lawful reporting affects not only journalists but also the public’s ability to receive information about events of public importance.
The argument is that reporting on demonstrations serves a public function: it allows citizens to understand how protests unfold, how the police respond and whether public authorities exercise their powers lawfully. When journalists are prevented from filming, detained without adequate explanation or deprived of their equipment, the resulting loss of information can extend beyond the immediate reporters involved.
The union has accordingly asked the Supreme Court to ensure that journalists are protected while performing legitimate reporting duties, irrespective of their accreditation status. It has argued that any restrictions imposed by police must be lawful, proportionate and supported by a valid justification rather than applied indiscriminately.
SUPREME COURT’S EARLIER DIRECTIONS CITED
The DUJ has referred to the Supreme Court’s order of October 11, which stated that journalists and other professionals should not be obstructed from discharging their duties. The union argues that the alleged incidents during the subsequent protest-related operations warrant examination in light of the court’s emphasis on allowing professional activities to continue.
The petition also refers to a notice issued by the National Human Rights Commission concerning allegations that three women journalists were sexually harassed during an earlier protest on October 3. By invoking that development, the union has asked the court to consider the safety of women journalists as part of a broader examination of police conduct during demonstrations.
The allegations concerning individual incidents remain subject to investigation and have not been established as judicial findings. The purpose of the petition is to seek an inquiry capable of determining what occurred, identifying those responsible where violations are established and clarifying the safeguards required for future reporting.
DUJ SEEKS INVESTIGATION, RETURN OF EQUIPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The union has asked the Supreme Court to order a time-bound independent inquiry into the alleged detention and mistreatment of journalists. It has also sought immediate preservation of relevant evidence, including recordings, communications and other material that could assist in reconstructing the incidents.
Another demand concerns the return of equipment allegedly retained by the authorities. The petition argues that journalists should not be deprived unnecessarily of cameras, mobile phones, microphones or other tools essential to their work.
The DUJ has further requested appropriate action and compensation in cases where violations are established. It has also sought safeguards specifically addressing the security of journalists covering public events, including women reporters who may face particular risks while documenting demonstrations in crowded or confrontational settings.
These requests place both individual accountability and institutional reform before the court. An investigation could determine whether specific police actions were lawful, while broader safeguards could help clarify how officers should interact with journalists during public-order operations.
A WIDER DISPUTE OVER POLICING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
The petition follows demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The protests led to heightened security deployment, preventive detentions and restrictions around sensitive locations in the national capital.
The CJP and opposition organisations have alleged that authorities used excessive force and obstructed peaceful assembly. Delhi Police has defended its security measures on public-order grounds, while the handling of journalists has become a separate source of concern.
The DUJ’s intervention does not determine whether each alleged incident occurred as described, nor does it establish that all police restrictions were unlawful. Instead, it asks the Supreme Court to examine specific allegations and ensure that lawful reporting remains protected during public demonstrations.
The central issue is whether security measures can be implemented without preventing journalists from gathering information that the public has a legitimate interest in receiving. The union argues that professional reporting cannot depend on whether a journalist carries a particular credential, and that the ability to document public events is an essential component of democratic accountability.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the petition could have implications for how police manage media access during demonstrations, how alleged misconduct is investigated and how journalists’ equipment is handled when they are detained. It could also clarify the safeguards available to independent and freelance reporters who may not have the formal accreditation or institutional support available to journalists working for established media organisations.
For the DUJ, the objective is to ensure that journalists can report on public events without fear of arbitrary detention, assault, intimidation or interference with their equipment. The petition seeks not only remedies for the reported incidents in Delhi but also clearer protections for future coverage of protests.
The dispute has therefore placed press freedom and police accountability at the centre of a broader constitutional debate. Its outcome will depend on the evidence examined by the court, the responses of the authorities and the judicial assessment of the protections required to preserve independent reporting during public demonstrations.
