Bench Considers Different Categories of Journalists Amid Allegations of Police Misconduct During Delhi Protests
Supreme Court Journalist Protection Debate During Delhi Protest Hearing
The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 15, examined whether different categories of journalists require additional legal protection. The Supreme Court Journalist Protection discussion arose during petitions concerning alleged police misconduct at protests in New Delhi.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
The petitions sought urgent protection for journalists covering demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Several journalists alleged that police personnel manhandled them, sexually harassed women reporters, and seized their electronic devices.
Consequently, the Court considered the legal safeguards available to journalists covering public demonstrations.
Supreme Court Examines Different Categories of Journalists
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that journalists may fall into different professional categories.
However, he clarified that the Court was not attempting to establish a final definition of journalism.
The judge noted that the issue requires detailed constitutional examination.
He stated:
“We are not presiding that. That would require a very very detailed examination of whether freedom of expression will empower every citizen of this country to be a journalist? That becomes difficult. There will be layers of protection – whether they are accredited journalists, whether they are employed with media houses who are registered under Press Council, whether they are individual freelance journalists, whether they are influencers, etc…well aware that [there are] classes amongst journalists, we’d have to examine.”
The observation highlighted the growing complexity of journalism in the digital era.
Moreover, the Bench acknowledged differences between accredited reporters, media employees, freelancers, and online content creators.
The Court indicated that these distinctions may require further examination while considering additional legal safeguards.
CJI Surya Kant Raises Concerns Over Broad Journalist Classification
Chief Justice Surya Kant also addressed the difficulties of identifying journalists during public demonstrations.
He cautioned against allowing every individual to claim professional journalist status without examination.
The Chief Justice observed:
“We will also keep in mind that if everybody will start claiming [they are] journalists, it will lead to creating problems.”
Therefore, the Bench recognised the need to examine the practical implications of different journalist classifications.
At the same time, the Court did not announce a final classification or restrict constitutional freedom of expression.
Instead, the judges indicated that the issue requires careful consideration.
Solicitor General Opposes Blanket Protection
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, opposed blanket interim protection against police action.
He argued that authorities face practical difficulties when identifying journalists at protest sites.
According to Mehta, modern digital technology allows almost anyone to record and publish events.
As a result, police may struggle to distinguish professional reporters from individuals creating social media content.
He stated:
“The difficulty we are facing – in the present era of digital technology, any person having a mobile is a journalist in his own right. It is our experience…our experience is that there are several people who say we are freelance journalists. They have a mic and they record things and they upload…these are all, what is going on is reel-making. That happens even on protest site. We do not know who is a reel maker, who is an independent journalist, but no lady should be inappropriately dealt with, including lady police personnel.”
Nevertheless, Mehta acknowledged that authorities must not treat women inappropriately, including female police personnel.
His submissions highlighted the operational challenges that law enforcement agencies face during demonstrations.
Women Journalists Allege Police Misconduct
The petitions also raised serious concerns about the safety of women journalists.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared in one of the matters and presented concerns about alleged police misconduct.
The petitioners accused police personnel of manhandling journalists and interfering with their reporting activities.
Additionally, they raised allegations of sexual harassment and unlawful seizure of electronic devices.
One woman journalist alleged that a police officer molested her during the protests.
However, counsel informed the Court that authorities had not registered an FIR on her complaint.
Instead, Delhi Police registered a counter-case against the journalist under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioners alleged that police initiated the counter-case to pre-empt her complaint.
These claims formed part of the issues before the Court.
Petitioners Seek Independent Investigation
The petitioners also questioned the fairness of an internal investigation by Delhi Police.
Senior counsel argued that the same police force should not investigate allegations against its own personnel.
In particular, counsel maintained that “they cannot investigate themselves.”
Therefore, the petitioners requested an independent oversight committee to examine the allegations.
They urged the Court to ensure an impartial investigation into the reported misconduct.
Furthermore, they sought safeguards against coercive police action during the proceedings.
The Bench considered these concerns while examining the requests for interim relief.
Supreme Court Considers Women-Led Inquiry Committee
The Supreme Court indicated its willingness to consider an independent committee.
The proposed panel would primarily comprise women members.
However, the Court did not announce a final decision establishing such a committee during the hearing described.
Meanwhile, the Bench directed authorities not to take coercive action against the woman journalist.
This interim direction addressed concerns arising from the counter-case against her.
Additionally, CJI Surya Kant asked the Union Government and Delhi Police to expedite their internal inquiry.
He directed them to complete the inquiry into the molestation allegations within one week.
Journalist Safety and Freedom of Expression Under Examination
The proceedings raised questions about press freedom, journalist safety, and police accountability.
The Bench also acknowledged the difficulties of distinguishing different forms of journalism in the digital era.
Importantly, the judges did not settle the question of who qualifies as a journalist.
Instead, they indicated that additional safeguards may require examination across different professional categories.
The Supreme Court Journalist Protection issue therefore extends beyond traditional newsroom employees.
It also concerns freelancers, independent reporters, accredited journalists, and digital content creators.
For now, the Court has granted interim protection against coercive action to the woman journalist.
It has also called for an expedited inquiry into the allegations.
The broader questions concerning journalist classification and additional legal safeguards remain under consideration.
