The Delhi Union of Journalists moved the Supreme Court seeking a probe into police action against reporters during protests on October 10 and 11. The union said journalists got detained and manhandled while working. They argued that freedom of speech belongs to every citizen and does not require government accreditation.

Security personnel detain activists of Indian Youth Congress (IYC) during a protest march toward Parliament Street, in New Delhi, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2026. Led by IYC National President Uday Bhanu Chib, demonstrators demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and opposed the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. PTI

The Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) has approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition alleging that journalists were detained, manhandled and obstructed from working while covering protests in the national capital on October 10 and 11.

The union has claimed that reporters were forcibly moved away from the sites, stopped from filming, and in some cases, subjected to physical force. The petition also referred to allegations that phones, cameras and microphones were taken from media persons, and women journalists were subjected to invasive searches and misbehaviour.

The petition has been filed on behalf of its members and other affected journalists through advocate Shashank Singh.

The petition relied on a signed statement by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who said he was detained on October 10 even after showing his Press Information Bureau (PIB) accreditation card.

He alleged that he was given neither the grounds of detention nor any papers. The union has also cited a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which recorded at least 35 detentions of journalists in Delhi over the two days.

A key issue in the plea is a Delhi Police advisory of October 5, which the union alleged was invoked to stop people without government accreditation or an employer-issued press card from reporting. The DUJ has argued that accreditation only eases access to designated official sources and cannot serve as a general licence to report on events in public spaces.

The petitioner has contended that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) belongs to every citizen and does not hinge on employment with a news organisation. Independent journalists, freelancers and those who report news on platforms such as YouTube are equally protected, subject to reasonable and proportionate restrictions, it said.

The plea invokes Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It says that interference with lawful reporting affects not only journalists but also the public's right to receive information.

The union has also referred to the apex court's October 11 order, which said journalists and other professionals should not be hindered in discharging their duties. It has further cited a notice issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over the alleged sexual harassment of three women journalists during an earlier protest on October 3.

The DUJ has sought protection for lawful reporting irrespective of accreditation, a time-bound independent inquiry, immediate preservation of evidence and the return of equipment allegedly retained by authorities.

It has also sought action and compensation where violations are established, and safeguards for reporters, including women journalists, covering public events.