SUPREME COURT DRAWS A SHIELD AROUND WOMAN JOURNALIST: INTERIM RELIEF FOLLOWS CLASHING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DELHI POLICE OFFICER
October 15, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 15: The Supreme Court has granted interim protection from coercive action to an independent woman journalist booked under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after she accused a Delhi Police officer of sexually harassing her while she was covering protests in the national capital.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the authorities not to take coercive action against the journalist for the time being. The order came during a hearing of petitions relating to the ongoing protests, bringing the journalist’s case into a wider judicial examination of the events surrounding the demonstrations.
The court’s intervention provides temporary legal protection to the journalist but does not determine the truth of either the sexual-harassment allegation or the caste-related accusations levelled against her.
TWO COMPLAINTS, TWO SETS OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS
The dispute centres on an incident at Jantar Mantar on October 3, when Assistant Commissioner of Police Vivek Bhagat was deployed for law-and-order duties during a protest demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The journalist subsequently accused Bhagat of sexually harassing her while she was covering the protest. Her complaint was forwarded to the Delhi Police Crime Branch for investigation. According to the submissions made before the Supreme Court, an FIR had not been registered on her complaint at the time of the hearing.
Bhagat, meanwhile, filed a separate complaint alleging that the journalist had made derogatory caste-related remarks about him in public and questioned his appointment as an ACP. He also alleged that she and others had publicly humiliated and defamed him.
Following his complaint, Delhi Police registered an FIR under provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning obstruction of a public servant, defamation and common intention.
The case has consequently developed into a dispute involving two competing sets of allegations: the journalist’s accusation of sexual harassment against a serving police officer and the officer’s allegations of caste-based humiliation and obstruction.
Neither set of allegations has been conclusively established by the Supreme Court’s interim order.
INDIRA JAISING RAISES CONCERNS OVER RETALIATION
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing the journalist, told the Supreme Court that her client had approached the police with a complaint against the officer but had not obtained registration of an FIR. Instead, she argued, the officer had approached the Delhi High Court seeking action against the journalist under the SC/ST Act.
Jaising characterised the case against her client as retaliatory and argued that the legislation was being misused in the circumstances. She urged the court to protect women journalists who report sexual harassment and subsequently face legal action arising from their complaints.
Her submissions also raised concerns about whether a police force should investigate allegations involving one of its own officers without adequate safeguards against potential conflicts of interest.
The defence sought broader protection for women journalists covering protests, arguing that they should not face coercive action simply because they report alleged misconduct by police personnel.
The bench, however, did not extend its protection through a blanket order covering all women journalists. Instead, it confined the relief to the specific case brought before it and the individuals identified in the accompanying material.
SUPREME COURT ORDERS PROTECTION, NOT A FINAL VERDICT
The bench directed that no coercive action be taken against the journalist while the matter remains under consideration. The direction provides immediate relief amid the criminal case registered on the officer’s complaint.
The court’s order is significant because it prevents coercive measures against the journalist at this stage while the competing allegations continue to be examined. It does not, however, amount to a finding that the officer’s complaint is false or that the journalist’s allegations have been proved.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the sexual-harassment allegations were being treated seriously and that the government would respond to the issues raised. He urged the court to hear the government’s position fully rather than reach conclusions before considering the relevant material.
Jaising also questioned the appropriateness of a police investigation into allegations involving a police officer and called for safeguards to ensure an impartial examination of the complaint.
The bench’s approach was limited to the immediate request for protection. The larger questions concerning investigative independence, the handling of complaints by women journalists and the circumstances surrounding the FIR remain unresolved.
A WIDER DEBATE OVER JOURNALISTS COVERING PROTESTS
The case has emerged amid continuing demonstrations in Delhi over demands for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and disputes surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Journalists covering such protests may find themselves operating in tense situations involving crowd control, detention of demonstrators and confrontations between police and protesters. Allegations of misconduct in those circumstances require careful investigation, particularly when the people involved subsequently become parties to criminal proceedings.
The present dispute also highlights the need to distinguish between the right to report alleged wrongdoing and the legal obligations that apply to everyone involved in a confrontation. A journalist’s professional role does not automatically establish the truth of a complaint, just as the filing of a criminal case does not establish guilt.
The SC/ST Act is intended to address caste-based atrocities, and allegations made under it require serious consideration. At the same time, claims that the law has been invoked improperly must be assessed through the legal process rather than assumed to be true.
The Supreme Court’s intervention leaves these issues open while ensuring that the journalist receives interim protection in the specific case before it.
THE NEXT TEST IS AN IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION
The immediate consequence of the order is clear: the journalist is protected from coercive action for now. The underlying dispute, however, remains far from resolved.
Investigators will need to examine the circumstances of the October 3 incident, the allegations made by both parties and any available supporting material. The handling of the journalist’s original complaint and the case registered on Bhagat’s complaint will remain central to determining whether the two matters have been dealt with fairly.
The Supreme Court has not delivered a final judgment on the merits of either complaint. Its intervention is an interim measure, not a declaration of innocence or guilt.
The case now stands as a test of how allegations involving police conduct, caste-based abuse and the treatment of journalists are investigated when the parties present sharply conflicting accounts.
For the journalist, the order provides temporary protection. For the authorities, it places renewed attention on the need for a fair and credible process. And for the wider media community, the proceedings raise an important question: how can journalists covering public protests report alleged misconduct without fear of retaliation, while ensuring that all complaints are investigated impartially and in accordance with the law?
