The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to pass an urgent order staying the ongoing police investigation into a First Information Report (FIR) registered against two journalists following a high-profile confrontation at Jantar Mantar. Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the matter, stated that the court could not grant such a request without first hearing the Delhi Police, effectively allowing the probe to continue until the matter is revisited after the upcoming Dussehra vacation.

The legal proceedings stem from an incident on October 3, 2026, during a public protest held near the Buta Singh roundabout. The conflict involved journalist Rosy and her colleague Gajendra Singh, and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat. The FIR filed against the journalists by the police official includes allegations of public humiliation, obstruction of a public servant, and the use of casteist slurs, invoking provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

During the brief session, legal counsel representing the journalists urged the court to grant an immediate stay on the investigation. The argument presented was that the FIR registered by the police officer was a retaliatory move, designed to intimidate the journalists following an earlier complaint filed by the woman journalist against the officer. The petitioner alleged that the officer had engaged in sexual assault during the handling of protesters at the site, an allegation the journalist had formally brought to police attention shortly after the incident.

Addressing the request for an interim stay on the investigation, Justice Pushkarna remarked, "I cannot pass any order without hearing the police side." The court underscored the necessity of due process , noting that the bench could not grant the relief sought without first providing the state an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing immediately following the court’s reopening on October 27, 2026 .

Conflicting Narratives and Retaliation Claims The tension surrounding the Jantar Mantar protest has spiraled into a complex web of legal cross-allegations. According to the complaint filed by ACP Bhagat, he was performing law and order duties when he overheard the journalist making derogatory comments regarding his caste and questioning his professional qualifications. He further alleged that the journalist, alongside members of the Cockroach Janta Party, subsequently circulated social media content designed to defame him and obstruct his official functions.

Conversely, the journalist has maintained that her actions were restricted to covering the detention of activists. In her petition before the High Court, she argued that the criminal case brought against her was constructed to neutralize her own complaint of sexual assault. Her legal representatives highlighted the sequence of events, arguing that no FIR had been registered on her original complaint, even after the matter was reportedly transferred to the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police for inquiry.

The discrepancy between the filing of the two complaints forms the core of the dispute. The journalists argue that the delay in addressing their sexual harassment allegations against the ACP, contrasted with the rapid registration of an FIR against them under the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act, suggests an institutional bias aimed at silencing critical reporting. The police, meanwhile, maintain that the FIR was a necessary step following the public display of casteist abuse and obstruction of police duties during an ongoing law and order operation.

Supreme Court Intervention and Ongoing Procedural Status The legal battle is further complicated by the involvement of the Supreme Court of India. Earlier, on October 15, the Supreme Court had issued directions ensuring that no coercive action would be taken against the journalist in connection with the case. During the High Court proceedings, counsel for the petitioner emphasized that given the apex court's recent stance, the Delhi Police should offer an assurance that they would not proceed with aggressive investigative tactics until the High Court could properly adjudicate the plea.

Despite these submissions, the Delhi High Court opted to maintain the current status quo, refusing to interfere with the investigation at this nascent stage. The court’s decision to adjourn the hearing until after the Dussehra break effectively means that the investigation remains live. While the Supreme Court's protective order provides some relief against immediate arrest or coercive measures, the broader investigation into the allegations of casteist remarks and obstruction of public duty will continue to be conducted by the Delhi Police.

The current judicial impasse highlights the difficulty courts face when managing competing criminal complaints where both parties allege a misuse of the legal process. By refusing the urgent stay, the court has signaled its preference for a comprehensive review of the case files, including the police's response and the status of the investigation into the sexual assault allegations previously raised by the journalist.

As the proceedings stand, the journalists remain subject to the ongoing investigation, and the Delhi Police are expected to present their findings or status reports when the court reconvenes. The upcoming October 27 hearing will be critical, as it is expected to clarify whether the High Court will find sufficient grounds to quash the FIR or whether the investigation into the SC/ST Act allegations will proceed toward a formal charge sheet. For now, both sides are holding their ground, awaiting the next phase of judicial scrutiny in a case that has sparked significant concern regarding the protection of journalists and the integrity of police investigations into claims of both harassment and systemic discrimination. The court’s refusal to act on an urgent basis suggests a cautious approach, aiming to avoid pre-judging the merits of the conflict before a full hearing of both perspectives can take place in the post-vacation period.