The , Delhi Unit, has formally moved the , invoking its under to challenge what it describes as a systematic pattern of intimidation, physical assault, and unlawful detention of media professionals by the and the . The petition, filed in the wake of student protests on , alleges that reporters were manhandled and forcibly detained while documenting public demonstrations in central Delhi, despite clearly displaying their official press credentials and identifying their professional status to on-ground officers.
This litigation follows a series of urgent developments in the nation's capital, where the city’s law enforcement agencies faced accusations of violating explicit . The petition, filed through , highlights that the actions occurred despite a specific order issued by the Supreme Court on , which unequivocally stated that “lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.” Alongside the KUWJ, the and the have also filed separate pleas seeking binding guidelines to safeguard media personnel from police coercion and to hold supervising officials accountable for the operational breakdown.
Escalating Clashes at Protest Sites The reported incidents describe a chaotic scene across central Delhi, particularly near the Connaught Place inner circle and RK Ashram Marg, where protestors had gathered to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Journalists from a wide spectrum of legacy and independent digital outlets reported being bundled into police buses, often without a stated reason or formal arrest record.
Among those who documented their experiences was Pragya Mishra, founder of the news outlet Ulta Chashma. In video footage recorded during her detention, she described the treatment as “extremely humiliating,” noting that she was physically carried by policewomen and deposited into a transport bus despite presenting her press identification. Similarly, independent journalist Shyam Meera Singh alleged that he was singled out by a mob before the police intervened—not to protect him, but to detain him at the behest of the heckling crowd. Singh claimed that he was struck by a police baton multiple times, asserting that the officer’s actions appeared motivated by a hostile attitude toward critical reporting rather than neutral crowd management.
The experience of Peek TV’s Sara Khan served to further galvanize concern among media associations. Khan, who suffered visible injuries during her detention, described being dragged by her limbs while failing to secure assistance from security personnel. Other organizations, including The Caravan, reported that their multimedia producer, Ryan Thomas, was subjected to physical violence inside a police vehicle, where officers allegedly attempted to force him to delete recorded footage. These incidents were mirrored by reports from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and BBC Hindi, whose staffers were also subjected to brief detentions or physical obstructions while reporting on the ground.
Violations of Judicial Directives Legal representatives for the journalists argue that the police’s conduct represents a direct defiance of the ’s recent judicial orders. The petition filed by the underscores that the use of force against journalists is not merely a collateral consequence of crowd control but a deliberate measure that “suppresses contemporaneous evidence and warns every reporter on the ground that scrutiny may invite physical reprisal.”
The petitioners contend that the police action rests on an “unconstitutional conflation of proximity with participation.” By treating the presence of journalists at a protest site as indistinguishable from that of demonstrators, the has effectively hindered the public’s fundamental right to be informed, a protection guaranteed under . The petition argues that the existing protocols for media coverage were ignored, as police officers relied on discretionary, on-the-spot enforcement rather than established legal procedures for detention.
To remedy this, the petitioners have requested that the Supreme Court establish a time-bound, independent enquiry to identify the specific police officers and supervising officials responsible for these actions. Furthermore, they seek a comprehensive preservation order covering CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police wireless communications, PCR call logs, and detention registers. These records are deemed essential to demonstrate the lack of in the police’s response and to challenge the assertion that the detainees were involved in disorderly conduct.
Pressure for Institutional Accountability The reaction from established press bodies has been swift and unified. The , the , the , and the have issued strong condemnations, calling for the immediate cessation of harassment against all media workers, regardless of their accreditation status. DIGIPUB, in particular, emphasized that independent and digital journalists were bearing the brunt of the police aggression, arguing that the “Digital India” platform cannot justify treating creators as second-class members of the press.
The DUJ and PCI joint statement pointedly rejected the argument that only PIB-accredited journalists were entitled to protection, noting that such a restriction has no basis in the afforded to the press as a whole. The organizations have demanded the return of all seized journalistic equipment and data, as well as the immediate release of any individuals still held in police custody.
As the matter now moves into the judicial arena, the Supreme Court is expected to deliberate on the necessity of binding operational protocols for police interactions with the media during public assemblies. The current procedural position rests on the court’s deadline for responses from the Union Home Secretary, the Commissioner, and the Delhi Metro chief. The outcomes of these hearings will likely define the contours of press freedom in the capital for the foreseeable future, as the judiciary determines whether the state’s duty to maintain can override the media’s to document the exercise of state power. Until the court provides further direction on these protocols, the legal community remains focused on whether current disciplinary mechanisms are sufficient to deter future violations of protected journalistic activities.
police accountability - press freedom violations - fundamental rights enforcement - judicial interim orders
