The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from Delhi Police over alleged assaults on women journalists covering protests and extended the compliance report deadline to October 15
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the presence of a senior Delhi Police officer to respond to allegations that women journalists were assaulted while covering protests in the national capital against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said a senior officer should appear before the court to explain the allegations after senior advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a petition filed by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), seeking safeguards for journalists reporting on protests.
“We'd like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” the CJI said.
The court also took note of contempt proceedings initiated by the Free Speech Collective over alleged police excesses against journalists, despite the Supreme Court's October 10 directions that mediapersons covering protests should not be obstructed or harassed.
The matters were scheduled to be heard on Tuesday but were adjourned to October 15 owing to the ill health of Justice V Mohana, who was part of the Bench comprising the CJI and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The court extended until October 15 the deadline for the authorities to file a compliance report on its earlier directions and respond to contempt proceedings and other petitions concerning the protests.
The NWMI petition seeks directions to protect journalists, particularly women, from physical handling, intimidation, arbitrary detention and forcible removal while undertaking legitimate newsgathering. It argues that the existing inquiry into alleged police excesses does not adequately address journalists' access to protest sites and the safeguards required for independent reporting.
The court also issued notice to the Centre and the ECI on a separate petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The provision bars courts from entertaining or continuing civil and criminal proceedings against serving or former election commissioners for acts undertaken, or purportedly undertaken, in the discharge of official duties.
ADR has contended that the provision grants blanket immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, placing them beyond judicial scrutiny and violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
It has sought a declaration that the provision is unconstitutional and the revival of proceedings that were discontinued following its enactment. The court directed that the petition be tagged with a similar challenge filed by NGO Lok Prahari, which is already pending.
The proceedings arise from a series of petitions alleging unlawful detention, use of force and restrictions on public movement during protests on October 10 and 11. Several political leaders, lawyers and journalists have alleged that they were detained or manhandled by police.
In its October 9 order, the Supreme Court had directed authorities not to impose a complete shutdown of metro and railway services ahead of the protests, observing that essential public transport could be regulated but not prohibited indiscriminately.
During a special sitting on October 11, the court directed that peaceful and unarmed assemblies be dealt with in accordance with law, that public transport and internet services remain functional subject to lawful restrictions, and that lawyers, journalists and other professionals be allowed to discharge their duties without obstruction. It also sought compliance with its directions and responses to allegations of contempt.