The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed a senior Delhi Police officer to appear in person on Thursday to address claims that women journalists covering recent protests in the capital had been physically handled and taken into custody, a development that extended the court's oversight of police conduct toward both demonstrators and members of the press.
The remarks were delivered by Chief Justice Surya Kant following a petition lodged by the Network of Women in Media, India, brought before the bench by senior advocate Indira Jaising, seeking protections for journalists at protest sites with a focus on women working in those environments. The bench scheduled the petition for Thursday, grouping it with outstanding matters concerning alleged police misconduct and pre-protest restrictions, with the Chief Justice indicating that a senior police officer would be required to appear before the court to address the charges against the force.
Jaising informed the bench that both a copy of the petition and an advance notice had already been delivered to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The court's direction for a senior officer to appear before the bench followed accounts that reporters present at protests over the special intensive revision of electoral rolls — and over the role played by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in that process — had been blocked from the area, subjected to rough treatment, and taken away without their consent. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan brought to the court's attention a contempt petition lodged by Freedom Speech Collective, which asserted that police personnel had physically targeted journalists in breach of the Supreme Court's 10 October directive establishing that members of the press covering the protests were entitled to work without interference. Advocate Chander Uday Singh also drew the court's attention to a petition raising comparable grounds.
Through its petition, the NWMI is asking the court to put in place protections for journalists working at protests and similar public gatherings. The submission contends that the current inquiry into alleged police misconduct leaves unaddressed a distinct set of press-freedom concerns — namely, whether journalists can reach protest locations, what happens when they are detained or removed, and what protections govern independent newsgathering in such environments. The petition calls on the Union Government to put in place protections guaranteeing that women working as journalists in a reporting capacity face no physical interference, threats, detention without cause, or removal from the vicinity of protests, public gatherings, or crowd-management operations on the basis of their presence alone.
The judicial response took shape after accounts surfaced of reporters being held by authorities at weekend demonstrations, even after those individuals had made their press credentials known. Delhi Police detained at least a dozen journalists covering protests against Kumar that Sunday, including Hindustan reporter Ashish Singh, who told reporters he had been pushed, hurt, and loaded onto a bus without his consent despite wearing his press credentials at the time.
Singh, aged 27, was reporting on a demonstration organised by the All India Students Association near RK Ashram Marg when he became involved in an altercation with police personnel who, according to his account, shoved him and struck him with an object he described as pointed. He stated that he presented his press credentials and identified himself as a reporter for Hindustan on multiple occasions, but was nonetheless placed aboard a bus alongside a photojournalist. The two journalists stepped off the bus near Mandir Marg after riding it for approximately twenty to thirty minutes. Singh expressed concern that officers on the scene might confiscate their devices and erase the footage stored on them.
Several members of the press were taken into custody as they recorded law enforcement activity at the demonstrations, according to reports. Three journalists from one outlet were picked up at Connaught Place and transported approximately 12 kilometres to Chhatrasal Stadium, where they were held for close to 45 minutes before being freed. A journalist from another news organisation was physically forced onto a bus and held there briefly before being released after making her press credentials known.
These accounts have broadened the scope of what the Supreme Court is already examining — a body of petitions centring on reported mass detentions, restrictions placed on freedom of movement through public spaces, and the suspension of metro and rail services in the lead-up to the protests. A two-judge panel comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, convened on Sunday, ruled that any detention of protesters who are both peaceful and unarmed is to follow the procedure established by law. Among the directives issued were requirements for public transport to continue running without interruption, for online access to remain intact, and for people to move about freely within the bounds of any lawful restrictions in place.
Contempt notices went out from the bench after authorities were found to have left its prior directions — covering the regulation of transport services and the protection of the right to peaceful protest — unaddressed. Questions were also raised about the conditions under which the detentions reportedly took place, the procedures followed, and the basis in law for holding those individuals.
Speaking on Monday, Chief Justice Kant urged members of the legal profession to keep the Supreme Court from becoming entangled in the political dimensions of the ongoing protests, adding that any form of civic activity should leave unimpeded the day-to-day operations of the court and the ability of lawyers, staff, and litigants to move freely.
