International organisations condemn detention of journalists during Delhi protests, urge police to uphold press freedom

Journalists covering the October 10 protests in Delhi were temporarily detained by police. CPJ said at least six were held, including journalists from The Indian Express and Hindustan Times. RSF reported a higher figure of 16. The detentions mattered because they affected people performing a public-interest job: reporting events as they happened.

The organisations pointed to the government's assurance to the Supreme Court that journalists would not be impeded. Social media posts and videos showed detained journalists displaying press cards from buses. CPJ urged police to stop targeting reporters. RSF said covering public events is not a crime. OHCHR also raised concern about journalists, lawyers, and civil society members being detained.

Their statements linked press freedom with democratic rights. CPJ said India had a special responsibility to protect journalists' constitutional right to report without interference. OHCHR called for restraint, respect for peaceful assembly, and the immediate, unconditional release of anyone arbitrarily detained. The competing detention figures also show uncertainty about the full scale.

The crackdown was large in both personnel and restrictions. Police said nearly 4,000 people were detained on Saturday, including prominent political figures and activists. More than 40,000 Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces personnel were deployed. These figures show that the response extended far beyond individual arrests at the protest site.

Authorities ordered the gates of 45 metro stations to be shut. They also cut mobile internet across central Delhi and cancelled trains entering the city. Barricades and spike strips were installed before the protest. Reports said journalists were detained around Jantar Mantar, and videos showed some being transported in buses with other detainees.

The restrictions were imposed before and during protests planned by the Cockroach Janata Party. The demonstrations demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's resignation over alleged electoral-roll irregularities. The scale of the operation matters because it affected movement, communication, reporting, and assembly across the capital, not only people accused of specific offences.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, or CPJ, is a US-based independent organisation. It documents attacks on journalists and advocates for press freedom worldwide. Reporters Without Borders, or RSF, is headquartered in Paris. It monitors violations against journalists and campaigns for independent journalism. OHCHR is the United Nations Human Rights Office, which addresses human-rights concerns.

Their roles differ but overlap. CPJ urged Delhi Police to honour the government's Supreme Court assurance that journalists would not be obstructed. RSF reported detentions and criticised police actions against the press. OHCHR expressed concern about mass detentions involving journalists, lawyers, and civil society members. It called for restraint and releases where detention was arbitrary.

These organisations do not replace courts or police investigations. Their interventions document events, inform the public, and pressure authorities to follow press-freedom, assembly, and human-rights standards. In this case, their statements drew attention to possible interference with reporting and to the treatment of peaceful protesters and other detainees.

Press freedom means journalists can gather, verify, and publish information without unjustified government interference. It protects reporting on matters that affect the public, including protests and allegations against public officials. The article connects this freedom to journalists' constitutional right to report without interference and to India's responsibility as the world's largest democracy.

The October 10 events show why the principle matters. Journalists from mainstream organisations and other outlets were detained around Jantar Mantar. Some displayed their press cards from buses carrying detainees. CPJ said police should honour the government's assurance to the Supreme Court that media personnel would not be impeded in their professional duties.

Protecting this right does not mean reporters are exempt from every lawful rule. It means authorities should not target them because they are covering public events. RSF said covering events of public interest is not a crime. When journalists can work safely, the public can learn what happens during protests and assess official actions.

When authorities detain journalists, fewer independent witnesses may be able to record what happens. That can reduce public accountability, especially when officials face allegations of wrongdoing. When peaceful protesters are detained, people may avoid joining demonstrations even when assembly is lawful. The article presents both risks together: interference with reporting and restrictions on peaceful protest.

The Delhi protests illustrate the concern. Journalists were reportedly detained around Jantar Mantar, while nearly 4,000 people were detained overall. The Supreme Court ordered that peaceful, unarmed protesters could not be detained except through the procedure established by law. Yet detentions continued for hours, according to the article, amid complaints about people being picked up while walking or standing peacefully.

International organisations therefore urged restraint and releases for arbitrary detainees. If these concerns persist, courts may face repeated challenges over police conduct, while citizens and journalists may lose trust in protections for assembly and reporting. Strong accountability requires authorities to follow both lawful procedures and judicial directions.

Conflicts recur when authorities treat public order as the overriding priority, while courts insist that liberty can be restricted only through lawful procedures. The article says vague language, procedural issues, and delayed compliance have sometimes allowed authorities to bypass judicial orders in practice. Lower courts have also been described as placing a premium on public order, often at the cost of personal liberties.

The article gives several examples. Arrests once made under Section 66A continued even after that provision was scrapped. It also refers to continuing violations of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines during arrests and delays in releasing people who had received court relief. The Supreme Court warned against wide prohibitory orders and blanket protest bans in landmark orders from 2012 and 2018.

The pattern persists because a formal court protection may not immediately change conduct on the ground. In Delhi, protesters complained of pickups outside the original New Delhi district and while standing or walking peacefully. The article says such disputes repeatedly test whether police, lower courts, and officials will enforce civil-liberty safeguards.

Independent journalism is essential because democracy depends on people receiving information that is not controlled by the authorities being examined. Reporters can document public events, question official actions, and bring alleged wrongdoing into public view. The article says journalists have a constitutional right to report without interference and that India has a special responsibility to uphold press freedom.

The protests offered a clear example. Demonstrators demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's resignation over alleged irregularities in electoral-roll revision. Journalists from The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Business Standard, Navbharat Times, Reuters, and other outlets were reportedly detained while covering events. Their presence could help establish what occurred during the demonstrations and detentions.

Independent reporting also supports accountability when authorities invoke public order. If journalists are obstructed, the public may have less information about police conduct, protest restrictions, or whether detainees were peaceful. That is why CPJ, RSF, and OHCHR urged authorities to protect reporting, respect assembly rights, and release people detained arbitrarily.