Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against Detention, Assault Of Journalists Covering Delhi Protests

The Free Speech Collective has moved the Supreme Court seeking binding guidelines to protect journalists from alleged unlawful detention, physical assault, intimidation and obstruction by police while covering protests, alleging that journalists continued to face such action even after the Court directed authorities not to hinder their professional duties.

“The material placed with the Petition records reporters being dragged, physically manhandled and forced into police vehicles; identifiable journalists being subjected to force despite displaying or asserting their press status; and injury to a media worker during newsgathering. The use of force against a journalist is not a collateral consequence of crowd control. It disables the very process by which the public learns how coercive State power is being exercised, suppresses contemporaneous evidence and warns every reporter on the ground that scrutiny may invite physical reprisal”, the plea states.

The writ petition seeks enforcement of the fundamental rights to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement and life and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 21.

The petition, filed by journalists' body Free Speech Collective, seeks an independent, time-bound inquiry into the alleged incidents, identification of officers responsible and preservation of police records and recordings that could establish the circumstances of the detentions and alleged use of force.

The petition was filed after the Supreme Court, on October 11, directed that “lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever”, after hearing submissions concerning detentions during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The plea alleges that further incidents involving journalists were reported after the direction, demonstrating the need for specific safeguards governing police interaction with media personnel during protests and crowd-control operations.

The petition refers to incidents reported on October 10 and 11, when journalists covering the protests were allegedly detained, dragged, manhandled or transported away from reporting locations in Delhi. It also refers to reports of journalists being prevented from documenting police action and a cameraperson sustaining injuries.

According to the petition, the affected journalists include reporters associated with Scroll, Newslaundry, Reuters, Business Standard, BOOMLive, India Today, The News Minute, Maktoob Media, The Indian Express, PTI and The Quint, among other media organisations.

The petition cites the reported detention of Scroll journalist Ayush Tiwari outside HKS Surjeet Bhawan despite his wearing a press pass. It also refers to the alleged dragging and detention of Peek TV journalists Vedanta Agarwal and Sara Khan at Connaught Place despite their showing press cards.

Other incidents cited include the detention of The News Minute journalist Nidhi Suresh and another woman journalist for several hours, and the release of a woman journalist associated with The Hindu only after her professional status was eventually accepted.

The petition alleges that journalists were treated as participants in the protests rather than independent observers, and police took action due to their proximity to demonstrators or confusion at the scene.

“Because the impugned practice rests on an unconstitutional conflation of proximity with participation. A journalist must often stand close enough to see, hear and record. Presence near protesters, possession of recording equipment, asking questions or documenting a detention does not convert an observer into a participant. To treat those acts as grounds for force or confinement immunises police conduct from scrutiny and creates a powerful chilling effect upon all reporting of protests and crowd-control operations”, the plea contends.

The petition refers to the Court's August 18 order constituting a High-Powered Enquiry Committee to examine issues including the proportionality of police action, identification of officers, alleged violence against women and police accountability.

It also refers to proceedings on October 9 concerning restrictions on public transport, when the Court observed that a complete ban on essential public transport appeared to be excessive and issued directions concerning Metro services and public advisories.

The petition highlights the restrictions imposed around the protests including the closure of Metro stations, suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi, extensive police deployment and restrictions on access to Jantar Mantar.

It argues that, while the earlier proceedings addressed police action and restrictions on movement, they did not establish a comprehensive framework governing journalists' access to protest sites or their treatment while documenting police operations.

It contends that the October 11 direction has not been sufficient to prevent further alleged incidents because it was not accompanied by a specific operational protocol, clear supervisory responsibility or an immediate mechanism for addressing violations.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to direct the authorities to immediately preserve and produce CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police videography, wireless communications, PCR call logs, duty rosters, deployment charts, vehicle movement logs, detention registers, arrest memos, medical records and complaints concerning incidents involving journalists from October 10 onwards.

It also seeks disclosure, on a location-wise and officer-wise basis, of journalists and media workers who were detained, removed, transported, injured or otherwise prevented from reporting, along with the legal grounds cited for the action, the officers involved, the duration and place of custody, and details of any medical assistance provided.

The petition seeks an independent, time-bound mechanism to investigate allegations of detention, physical violence, injury, coercive removal and obstruction of journalists; determine individual and supervisory responsibility; and recommend disciplinary or other action in accordance with law, along with appropriate compensation and remedial measures.

It has further requested the Court to frame binding guidelines for police interaction with journalists during protests and public assemblies. The proposed safeguards include visible identification of police personnel, recognition of press credentials without treating formal accreditation as the sole test of journalistic status, clear thresholds for the use of force, recording of reasons for detention or removal, access to lawyers and media organisations, medical assistance, protection of journalistic equipment and data, and preservation of contemporaneous evidence.

The petition also seeks a declaration that arbitrary detention, forcible removal, intimidation, assault and other use of force against journalists performing their professional duties violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution and impermissibly burden the public's right to know.

The Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) has separately filed a writ petition seeking safeguards for journalists covering protests, emphasising the dignity and safety of women journalists. The petition argues that the existing inquiry into alleged police excesses does not specifically address journalists' access to protest sites, their detention or forcible removal, and the safeguards necessary for reporting and newsgathering.

The NWMI petition additionally seeks directions to the Union of India to ensure that women journalists engaged in bona fide newsgathering or reporting are not subjected to physical handling, intimidation, arbitrary detention or forcible removal merely by reason of their presence at or proximity to a protest, public assembly, crowd-control operation or other event of public importance.

The petitions have been filed through Advocate on Record Aarthi Rajan.