Journalist alleging harassment by Delhi Police ACP had to endure 25-point questionnaire by Crime Branch

What allegations did the journalist make against ACP Vivek Bhagat, and what action did the police take afterward?

The central allegation is that a police officer used sexual harassment and physical force against a journalist doing her job. She said ACP Vivek Bhagat sexually harassed and shoved her while she recorded the detention of All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora. The allegation matters because it concerns conduct by police during a public protest.

The journalist complained after the October 3 incident. Delhi Police said on October 4 that it had received three complaints about the allegations. Those complaints were transferred to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The journalist was later summoned and given a 25-point questionnaire about the incident, the officer’s conduct, and her background.

No FIR has been registered against the officer so far. The journalist’s lawyer said investigators questioned her as if she were an accused person. The team also sought video footage, while her lawyers requested preservation of nearby CCTV and police body-camera recordings.

What is an FIR, and why does its registration matter in a criminal investigation?

FIR means First Information Report. In general criminal procedure, police record it when information indicates a cognisable offence, meaning an offence for which police can begin investigation without first obtaining a court warrant. The FIR records the initial account and identifies the alleged offences; it is not a final finding of guilt.

Registration can activate formal investigative steps. Police may then record statements, gather documents and video, examine witnesses, and pursue other lawful evidence. In this case, the journalist’s legal team wanted the police to secure CCTV and body-camera footage, while the Crime Branch sought a video already held by the journalist and her lawyers.

The article highlights the significance of the missing FIR. Police had transferred three complaints to the Crime Branch, yet no FIR had been registered against the officer. An FIR would formally place the allegations into a criminal investigation, while the facts would still need to be tested.

How many journalists and protestors are directly mentioned in the complaints, detentions, and police cases described in the article?

The article directly mentions three women journalists in the complaints. The NHRC acted on a report alleging that three women journalists were sexually harassed by city police personnel at Jantar Mantar on October 3. The article focuses mainly on one journalist, who accused ACP Vivek Bhagat.

The police case names the journalist and 16 other protestors, making 17 protestors in that FIR. The journalist was also detained twice: first during the October 4 protest and later on October 5 while demanding registration of a case. The article does not give a total number of unique protestors across all events.

Therefore, the clearest count is three journalists in the complaints and 17 protestors in the police case. The figures should not be combined as a headcount of unique people. The article does not identify all three journalists or clarify whether every person mentioned in one event appeared in another.

Why was the complaint transferred from the Parliament Street police station to the Crime Branch, and what role does the Crime Branch play?

The article does not state why the complaint moved from Parliament Street police station to the Crime Branch. Delhi Police said on October 4 that it had received three complaints concerning the allegations and had transferred them to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The transfer is therefore documented, but its specific justification is not.

The Crime Branch is the police investigative unit now handling the matter. It questioned the journalist at its Prashant Vihar office, gave her a 25-point questionnaire, and requested a video held by her legal team. It is also the body conducting the inquiry into the complaints, according to the article.

The journalist’s lawyer questioned the choice of location because the original complaint was submitted at Parliament Street police station. He also criticised the questioning and said the complainant felt treated like an accused. The article does not say when the inquiry will end or whether it will lead to an FIR against the officer.

What is the NHRC, and why can it take suo motu notice of alleged human-rights violations?

The NHRC is the National Human Rights Commission, a statutory body concerned with alleged violations of human rights. “Suo motu” means it starts action on its own initiative, rather than waiting for a formal petition from an affected person. This power allows the Commission to respond to serious reports in the public interest.

Here, the NHRC acted after taking notice of a news report. The report said three women journalists were allegedly sexually harassed by city police personnel at Jantar Mantar on October 3. The Commission issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner and requested a detailed report within two weeks.

The notice does not decide whether the allegations are true. It creates an oversight process and asks the police leadership to explain what happened and how the matter is being handled. Alongside the Crime Branch inquiry, that request puts the police response under external scrutiny.

What evidence could CCTV footage and police body-camera recordings provide, and why might preserving them quickly matter?

Video evidence could help establish what happened during the alleged confrontation. CCTV might show the journalist, ACP Vivek Bhagat, other officers, protesters, movements, and the sequence near the Mother Dairy booth on Janpath Lane. Body-camera recordings could capture officers’ actions and interactions from their own positions.

The legal team asked police to secure footage within a 500-metre radius and preserve recordings from all police body cameras in that area. The Crime Branch also requested a video held by the journalist and her lawyers. Comparing these sources could help investigators test different accounts against time, location, and visible conduct.

Speed matters because recordings can be overwritten, lost, damaged, or become harder to authenticate later. The article does not say whether police secured the requested material. It records that the complainant’s team would submit its video after an FIR was registered, leaving preservation an important unresolved issue.

How should a criminal justice system distinguish between questioning a complainant to establish facts and treating that complainant as a suspect?

A criminal justice system needs facts from complainants, but questioning should remain relevant to the alleged offence. Investigators can ask about what the complainant saw, heard, felt, recorded, and who was present. They should explain the purpose of questions, avoid blaming language, and protect the person’s dignity while testing evidence.

In this case, the journalist received 25 questions about whether she knew ACP Bhagat, previous encounters, his attempt to detain others, and his conduct. Her lawyer said investigators also asked about her family and media work. He felt the questioning focused on profiling her and establishing the officer’s credibility instead of examining the allegation.

Background questions may sometimes have a clear evidentiary reason, but they should not replace investigation of the reported conduct. The article also notes that counselling had not been provided. A fair process should preserve evidence, record the complainant’s account carefully, provide appropriate support, and investigate all versions without treating her as an accused.

Key Facts:

📌 The journalist alleged sexual harassment and shoving by ACP Vivek Bhagat.

📌 Delhi Police received three complaints about the allegations.

📌 No FIR has been registered against the officer.

📌 FIR means First Information Report.

📌 An FIR formally records information about an alleged criminal offence.

📌 No FIR had been registered against the officer.

📌 The complaints involved three women journalists.