No stay on probe against journalist in SC/ST case filed after she accused ACP of sexual assault

The refusal means the FIR against the journalist remains active for now. Police can continue investigating the allegation that she made casteist remarks about ACP Vivek Bhagat. The court has not yet decided whether the case should ultimately be cancelled or quashed.

Justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice on the journalist’s petition but declined to halt the probe. She said she would hear the matter on merits after the police filed their reply. The court scheduled the matter for final hearing on November 17.

This leaves the journalist facing an ongoing investigation while her challenge is pending. The decision is separate from the Supreme Court’s interim protection granted to her on October 15. Her lawyer called Bhagat’s complaint retaliatory, but the High Court did not accept that argument as a reason to stop the investigation at this stage.

The journalist alleged that Bhagat sexually harassed her while she was filming student leader Neha Bora’s detention during protests on October 3. She said he groped her as she made the video. Her sexual-harassment complaint was later transferred to the Delhi Crime Branch.

Bhagat filed his complaint on October 13. He said the journalist made derogatory remarks about his Scheduled Caste community during the protests. He also alleged that she and colleagues protested outside Parliament Street police station and described him as a “sexual predator” and “potential rapist.”

The two complaints concern different alleged wrongs and are being handled through separate legal processes. Bhagat said the remarks and accusations caused mental distress and harmed his reputation. The journalist’s lawyer described his caste-related complaint as retaliatory and revengeful. The High Court has allowed its investigation to continue.

A first information report, or FIR, is a formal police record of information about an alleged cognisable offence. It begins the criminal investigation. An FIR is not a finding of guilt. It records allegations that police must examine under legal procedure.

During an investigation, police can question the complainant and witnesses, collect documents or digital material, inspect relevant places, and seek other evidence. They may also question the accused. Depending on the alleged offence and applicable law, police can arrest a person, but an FIR alone does not automatically establish guilt or require arrest.

Here, the High Court allowed the investigation into Bhagat’s FIR to continue. That means police can investigate his allegation that the journalist made casteist remarks. The court has not ruled that the allegations are true. It will consider the journalist’s challenge after receiving the police response, with final hearing scheduled for November 17.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are officially recognised categories in India. They include communities historically affected by caste-based exclusion, discrimination, and social disadvantage. Their lists are specified through constitutional and legal processes. The categories are not simply descriptions of individual identity; they support targeted protections and affirmative measures.

India’s Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act criminalises specified acts against members of these communities, when its legal conditions are met. Alleged casteist words can therefore trigger a criminal case if they amount to an offence covered by that law. The exact facts, words, intent, location, and legal requirements matter.

In this case, Bhagat said the journalist made derogatory remarks about his Scheduled Caste community during October 3 protests. His complaint led to an FIR. The journalist’s lawyer noted that she belongs to Nagaland’s Lyngdoh community, described as a Scheduled Tribe group. The High Court has not determined whether either side’s allegations are true.

According to India’s 2011 Census, Scheduled Castes numbered about 201.4 million people, or 16.6% of the population. Scheduled Tribes numbered about 104.3 million, or 8.6%. These remain the latest completed nationwide Census figures commonly used for population shares; a newer full Census count is not available as of 2026.

Together, the two groups represented roughly 25.2% of India’s population in 2011. Their legal protections cover a very large number of people. They address forms of exclusion and abuse that can affect access to dignity, safety, education, employment, land, and public participation.

The protections also explain why an alleged caste-based insult can have criminal consequences rather than being treated only as a private dispute. In the article, Bhagat’s complaint invoked his Scheduled Caste identity, while the journalist’s lawyer identified her as part of a Scheduled Tribe community. The High Court must still assess the specific allegations and legal requirements.

Indian police can investigate separate allegations arising from the same event or surrounding events. The journalist’s complaint concerns alleged sexual harassment by Bhagat. His complaint concerns alleged casteist remarks by the journalist. Each matter requires its own evidence, legal tests, and conclusions.

The article gives a clear example. The journalist said Bhagat groped her while she recorded Neha Bora’s detention on October 3. Her complaint was transferred to the Delhi Crime Branch. Bhagat filed his complaint on October 13, alleging derogatory remarks about his Scheduled Caste community during the protests. The High Court allowed that FIR’s investigation to continue.

Parallel investigations do not mean either allegation has been proved. Police may collect evidence in each matter and ultimately submit their findings through the proper legal process. The Supreme Court granted the journalist interim protection on October 15, but that protection does not erase Bhagat’s FIR. The High Court will hear her challenge after the police reply.

Interim protection from arrest is a temporary order preventing police from arresting a person while a court considers the case. It protects personal liberty during the pending proceedings. It does not necessarily stop questioning, evidence collection, or other investigation steps, unless the order says so.

A stay on investigation is different. It pauses the police inquiry itself, including the process of collecting evidence and preparing the case. In this matter, the Supreme Court granted the journalist interim protection on October 15. Separately, the Delhi High Court refused to stay the investigation into Bhagat’s FIR.

The two orders can coexist because they address different concerns. The journalist may remain protected from arrest under the Supreme Court’s interim order, while police continue investigating the caste-related allegations. The High Court issued notice and will consider her petition on merits after the police reply. Its final hearing is scheduled for November 17.