Journalists' 'harassment': SC seeks senior cop's presence

The central allegation is sexual harassment of women reporters by police personnel during their professional coverage of the October 10 protest. It matters because the Supreme Court had directed that journalists’ professional activities should not be hindered. The allegation therefore raises both personal safety concerns and questions about press access during demonstrations.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising told the court that the Network of Women in Media had filed a petition describing the incidents. She said an advance copy had already been served on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents Delhi Police. The article does not describe the specific conduct alleged or identify individual officers.

The Supreme Court asked a senior Delhi Police officer to attend on Thursday and explain the allegations. The court said it wanted assistance on the issues raised in the petitions. The allegations will therefore be examined alongside other complaints involving protesters, lawyers, journalists, and police conduct during the protest.

The Supreme Court asked for a senior Delhi Police officer because serious allegations had been made about police conduct during the October 10 protest. Women journalists said they were sexually harassed while covering the event. A senior officer could provide the court with an official response and help clarify what happened.

Indira Jaising said the Network of Women in Media had filed a petition describing the incidents. She also said an advance copy had been served on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents Delhi Police. The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, specifically said it wanted a senior police officer present to explain and assist the court.

The appearance will take place Thursday, when the court plans to hear the petitions together. The officer’s attendance does not establish that the allegations are proven. It gives the court a direct channel for examining the complaints and the police response.

At least five groups are mentioned in connection with complaints or petitions about the protest: women journalists generally, lawyers, detained students, and protesters. The count is approximate because the categories overlap. Women journalists are journalists, and several complaints concern the same events and police actions.

The Network of Women in Media petitioned over alleged sexual harassment of women reporters. More journalists filed contempt petitions and a writ petition. Lawyers raised complaints about alleged manhandling of Shadan Farasat, Dinesh Dwivedi, and Uttara Babar. Nithya Ramakrishnan also alleged that students detained on October 10 were tortured in custody. Other petitions challenged police action against protesters.

These groups show the breadth of the dispute before the Supreme Court. The court said all the issues were serious and would be examined Thursday. The article also mentions political leaders as subjects of a proposed criminal contempt case, but it does not say they filed those petitions.

A finding that police violated court orders or unlawfully blocked protected professional activity could lead to contempt proceedings, corrective directions, and other judicial remedies. The exact consequence would depend on the court’s findings and the nature of any violation. The article does not report a final finding or punishment.

The court had already sought responses after an extraordinary Sunday hearing found a prima facie breach of its October 9 order on metro and train services. It also sought a police status report on alleged excessive force. Separately, petitions accused authorities of obstructing journalists, lawyers, and protesters despite the court’s direction protecting their professional activities.

The court may therefore examine official records, responses, and the petitions before deciding what action is justified. Political leaders also face a proposed criminal contempt petition over allegedly storming the Supreme Court and blocking access to its filing counter. The article says these matters will be heard Thursday.

Criminal contempt is a legal concept covering conduct that wilfully disobeys a court order or obstructs, interferes with, or tends to undermine the administration of justice. This definition comes from established legal understanding, not from a definition provided in the article. A court must still examine the facts and legal requirements before deciding whether contempt occurred.

Gaurav Bhatia and Mahesh Jethmalani mentioned a petition seeking criminal contempt action against political leaders. They referred to a procession that allegedly entered the Supreme Court on Monday evening and obstructed access to its petition filing counter. They also sought preservation of CCTV footage and a ban on political activity inside the court premises.

The alleged obstruction matters because the filing counter is part of access to the justice system. If people were prevented from reaching it, the court could consider whether its functioning was interfered with. The article reports only that the petition was mentioned; it does not say that contempt has been established.

The relevant constitutional rights include freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, movement, and the freedom to practise a profession. Journalists rely on expression and press freedom, protesters on peaceful assembly, and lawyers and reporters on professional activity. Personal liberty and equal treatment are also relevant when people are detained or allegedly mistreated. These constitutional links use established Indian legal knowledge; the article does not cite specific provisions.

The article describes protesters being denied permission to assemble at Jantar Mantar, alleged excessive force, and claims that students were tortured in custody. It also says the Supreme Court directed that lawyers, journalists, and other professionals should not have their work hindered. Restrictions on metro services and city movement add a public-mobility issue.

Rights are not unlimited. Authorities may impose lawful restrictions for public order and other recognised reasons, but the restrictions must meet constitutional standards. The Supreme Court’s petitions and orders provide a way to test whether the restrictions and police conduct were lawful and proportionate.

Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to examine whether executive action is lawful, constitutional, and consistent with existing court orders. It can hear writ petitions, contempt petitions, and related applications, then require authorities to explain their conduct. This general explanation uses established legal knowledge; the article describes the court’s review process but does not define the doctrine.

Here, the court sought responses from the Union home secretary, Delhi Police commissioner, and Delhi Metro chief. It also requested a police status report on alleged excessive force and asked for a senior officer to address harassment allegations. Lawyers sought preservation of CCTV footage concerning the Supreme Court premises.

The court can compare official explanations with petitions, records, and its earlier orders. It had already found a prima facie breach of the October 9 order concerning metro and train services. On Thursday, it plans to hear the petitions and examine the serious issues raised.