New Delhi [India], October 16 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no coercive action be taken against a woman journalist booked under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on a complaint by Delhi Police ACP Vivek Bhagat, whom she had accused of sexually harassing and manhandling her while she was covering a protest in Delhi on October 3.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the direction while hearing a plea concerning allegations of sexual harassment and assault of women journalists covering protests in the national capital.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the journalist, told the Court that her client had been “very badly” treated by a police officer and alleged that, instead of acting on her complaint, the officer had initiated proceedings against her under the SC/ST Act.
The incident dates back to October 3, when the journalist was covering a protest organised by the All India Students’ Association (AISA) demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
According to her complaint, she was recording a police officer detaining a woman activist when Bhagat allegedly caught hold of her breast, pressed it and pushed her.
The journalist alleged that when she questioned the officer over his conduct, he asked her to leave and subsequently called female police personnel to surround her. She lodged a complaint at the Parliament Street police station the same day.
Delhi Police transferred her complaint, along with complaints by two other journalists who had also accused Bhagat of sexual harassment, to the Crime Branch for an impartial inquiry. However, no FIR had been registered on her complaint, according to reports.
Bhagat subsequently filed a complaint alleging that the journalist and her colleagues had made casteist remarks against him, publicly humiliated him and obstructed him from discharging his official duties.
He alleged that the journalist had referred to his caste while pointing at his nameplate and made derogatory remarks about his appointment as an ACP.
An FIR was registered against three journalists under provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including provisions relating to obstruction of a public servant and criminal defamation.
The woman journalist also approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection from arrest in the case. The High Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on her plea on Thursday.
Before the Supreme Court today, Jaising said the proceedings initiated by Bhagat under the Atrocities Act had followed her client’s complaint against him. She sought protection against coercive action against women journalists who had alleged harassment by police personnel.
The Court, however, said it would restrict its consideration of the immediate protection plea to the journalist specifically mentioned in the petition.
“Don’t take coercive action against any woman journalist,” the Court told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing Delhi police.
The Chief Justice said the allegations of harassment of women journalists were very serious. The Court also said it was examining whether an independent agency should investigate the specific allegations against police officials.
Jaising separately sought the constitution of a committee to examine complaints of sexual harassment and assault against women journalists covering protests. She offered to submit the names of the alleged victims in a sealed cover and said she would also provide a separate report recommending persons to head the proposed committee.
The Court suggested that the panel should comprise predominantly former women judges and former IPS officers.
Mehta submitted that while no woman should be subjected to harassment, the issue of blanket directions required consideration after the police filed their report. He also pointed to the difficulty of distinguishing accredited journalists from freelancers and social media content creators.
Jaising countered that people had a right to work as independent journalists.
The hearing was part of a broader batch of petitions concerning alleged police excesses during the October 10 protests in Delhi. The Court also considered pleas relating to alleged attacks on lawyers and other protesters, with the bench noting that four petitions concerning attacks on lawyers required responses from the authorities.
During the hearing, the Court observed that distinguishing journalists from others claiming the same status under the right to freedom of expression posed a challenge. It indicated that different levels of protection might have to be considered for accredited journalists, independent reporters and social media influencers (ANI)
SC bars coercive action against journalist alleging sexual harassment by Delhi police officer, who counter-accuses her of casteist remarks
