No coercive action should be taken against journo: SC

The Supreme Court temporarily protected the woman journalist from coercive action in the criminal case against her. She was accused of making casteist remarks against Delhi Police ACP Vivek Bhagat. The order matters because she says that case was filed in retaliation for her sexual-harassment complaint against the officer.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the direction. It was hearing a petition by the Network of Women in Media, India, concerning alleged violence and sexual harassment faced by women journalists covering protests. The court also permitted sealed-cover submissions naming journalists who wished to complain.

The order does not decide whether the allegations are true or cancel the FIR. The court is still considering whether an independent committee should investigate complaints against police officers. It also invited suggestions about possible committee members, including former women judges, IPS officers, citizens and social activists.

In a criminal case, “no coercive action” is a temporary protection against forceful measures by authorities. It commonly prevents steps such as arrest or detention while a court considers the dispute. The protection is directed at how the case proceeds, not necessarily at whether the case exists.

Here, the Supreme Court told authorities not to take coercive action against the woman journalist accused of casteist remarks, public humiliation and obstructing an officer. The court did not say that the FIR was quashed. It also did not rule on whether her allegations against ACP Vivek Bhagat or the police allegations were true.

The police may therefore generally continue lawful investigation, subject to the order and other legal safeguards. They may collect evidence or pursue non-coercive procedural steps if permitted. The exact limits depend on the court’s wording and later orders, so the direction should not be read as immunity from the criminal case.

The Supreme Court is considering an independent committee to examine allegations of violence and sexual harassment against police personnel. Independence matters because the alleged conduct concerns members of the same police system that might otherwise handle complaints. The proposal aims to create a process that complainants may view as more impartial.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing the Network of Women in Media, India, sought a committee made mainly of former women judges, IPS officers, eminent citizens and social activists. She also asked to submit the identities of women journalists wishing to make written complaints in a sealed cover. The court permitted both types of submissions.

The court has not yet constituted the committee. It said it was considering whether one was needed and invited suggestions about possible members. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the police, asked the court to await the police response before deciding. The proposal could shape how similar complaints are examined.

The FIR against the journalist concerns three allegations described in the article. She is accused of making casteist remarks against Delhi Police ACP Vivek Bhagat, publicly humiliating him and obstructing him from performing his official duties. The Delhi High Court was asked to hear her challenge to that FIR urgently.

The journalist disputes the case’s purpose and timing. She alleges that Bhagat sexually harassed her during a protest in Delhi. She says the FIR was filed as a “counterblast” to that complaint, meaning a retaliatory case intended to answer or weaken her accusation. The article presents these as competing claims, not established findings.

The Supreme Court ordered that no coercive action be taken against her for now. Meanwhile, the court is examining broader allegations involving women journalists covering protests on October 10 and earlier. The Delhi High Court declined to hear her plea urgently that day, while the Supreme Court considered possible independent oversight.

Stronger protections could reduce uncertainty and risk for women journalists covering protests. The court heard that women journalists face violence and harassment at Jantar Mantar, even though they cover events from war zones without similar obstacles. A national protocol could explain how police and authorities must respond to complaints.

Indira Jaising said there was no national protocol for such cases and sought protection from coercive action for women journalists alleging harassment. The proposed process could provide a standard way to record complaints, identify responsible authorities and investigate allegations. The court is also considering an independent committee with women judges, IPS officers, citizens and activists.

No new protection or protocol has yet been ordered in the article. The court is weighing journalists’ safety against concerns about overly broad safeguards. It also questioned who qualifies as a journalist, including accredited, employed, freelance and influencer categories. Future directions could clarify both safety measures and professional status.

The court identified four categories while discussing whether every person claiming to report an event should receive journalistic protection. It referred to accredited journalists, people employed as journalists by news organisations, freelance journalists and influencers. This classification highlights how digital technology has blurred older boundaries around journalism.

The question arose during arguments about protections for journalists covering protests. The court noted that journalists may rely on two rights: free speech and the right to practise a profession. It then asked whether someone carrying only a microphone and mobile phone could automatically claim to be a journalist.

The court did not decide that issue. It said the question required detailed examination, including whether Article 19(1)(a) empowers every citizen to claim journalistic status. The discussion could affect who receives any special protection created for journalists at protests. For now, the four categories were examples raised by the bench, not a final legal definition.

Article 19(1)(a), as discussed in the hearing, is connected to the right to free speech. Journalism can also involve the right to practise a profession. Together, these rights explain why journalists may need protection while gathering and reporting information during protests. They do not, by themselves, answer every question about journalistic status.

The Supreme Court said two rights were involved: free speech and the right to practise a profession. It distinguished accredited journalists, news-organisation employees, freelancers and influencers. The bench asked whether a person with only a microphone and mobile phone could claim to be a journalist, and whether Article 19(1)(a) empowers every citizen to do so.

The court did not give a final answer. It said the issue required detailed examination. Thus, the rights protect speech and professional activity, but the article does not establish that either right automatically makes every citizen a journalist. Any special protection may require further legal clarification.