The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no coercive action be taken against a woman journalist facing allegations of making casteist remarks against Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat, after she claimed that the complaint was a counterblast to her allegations of sexual harassment against the same police officer during protests in the Capital.
The order was passed on a day when the Delhi high court declined to urgently hear the woman journalist’s plea challenging the case against her for allegedly making casteist remarks against ACP Bhagat, publicly humiliating him and obstructing him from discharging his official duties.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the case of the woman journalist while issuing notice on a petition filed by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), which highlighted instances of violence and sexual harassment faced by women journalists while covering protests in the Capital on October 10 and before that.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising, was allowed to submit in a sealed cover the identities of all women journalists who were victims and wished to submit their complaints in writing.
Jaising said that since the allegation by the woman journalist was against police personnel, an independent commission should be constituted, comprising predominantly former women judges, Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, eminent citizens and social activists.
The court said, “Meanwhile, no coercive action be taken against the journalist,” and further allowed Jaising to submit in a sealed cover her suggestions on persons who could be part of the committee to look into the allegations. “There are allegations against certain police officers. We are considering whether there must be an independent committee to probe them,” the court remarked.
The bench said, “Journalists will require an extra category of protection. There are two rights involved – right to free speech and right to practice profession. But we must also keep in mind whether anybody with a mike and mobile can claim to be a journalist.” The court said that there were accredited journalists, persons employed as journalists with news organisations, freelance journalists and influencers. “There has to be a detailed examination whether freedom of speech and expression right contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution empowers every citizen to be a journalist.”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the police, told the court to await its response before taking any decision on constituting an independent commission. On the allegation made by the woman journalist against the officer, Mehta said, “Difficulty is that in the present era of mobile technology, everybody is a journalist. I am not on this lady but there is a version that the video she has produced (alleging harassment) could be AI generated.”
Jaising said that a standard operating procedure must be in place, as women journalists faced no obstacles while covering events in war zones but faced violence and harassment while covering protests at Jantar Mantar. “There is no national protocol on how to deal with such cases. We do not want any coercive action to be taken against any woman journalist alleging harassment.”
Mehta said that a blanket order of no coercive action could not be passed. “No lady should be inappropriately dealt with, including the female police personnel. There are allegations of harassment faced by them. Passing an order of no FIR against lady journalists will be too wide a relief.”
Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing in one of the petitions, submitted to the court that on October 12, when Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, along with other Opposition leaders, stormed into the precincts of the Supreme Court with a huge gathering of lawyers, a woman journalist who was three months pregnant was pushed by Gandhi. She suffered injuries and had to be hospitalised. Mehta also said that it was strange that Jaising was not raising the concern of this woman journalist.
Jaising accused Bhatia of trying to “bring politics” into the case, even as the court remarked, “We cannot take suo motu cognisance on an oral submission. If there is a petition, we will examine.”
Earlier in the day, the Delhi high court bench of acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, which took up the matter of the woman journalist alleging harassment by ACP Bhagat, turned down her lawyer’s request for an urgent hearing on Thursday. However, the bench agreed to hear the matter on Friday.
The FIR, seen by HT and registered on Tuesday, booked the journalist and two others under sections 221 (obstructing public servant), 356(2) (defamation) and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petition stated that the FIR was a “pure misuse of power” by the police authorities and a counterblast to the October 3 complaint at Parliament Street police station.
“The said allegations are baseless, devoid of merit and actuated by mala fides, being a clear counterblast to the complaint of sexual assault lodged by the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 2, so as to dissuade, extort, humiliate and intimidate the petitioner,” the petition said.
It added that the 10-day delay in reporting the alleged incident, juxtaposed with the registration of the impugned FIR within half an hour of the information being supplied, while Delhi Police had not registered an FIR based on her allegations, raised serious concerns regarding the bona fides of the police authorities.
The controversy dates to October 3, when the woman journalist said she was recording the detention of a Left activist at the protest when Bhagat allegedly touched her inappropriately and pushed her.
Bhagat denied the allegations. The police forwarded her complaint to the crime branch for an “impartial inquiry”.
”.