‘Don’t Know Who Is Reel Maker, Who Is Independent Journalist’: Centre Tells SC During Hearing On SIR, Police Excesses

The Supreme Court heard allegations of sexual harassment and manhandling of women journalists during SIR protests, as the Centre opposed blanket directions against police action.

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was difficult to distinguish between people making reels at protest sites and independent journalists covering events. The submission came during a hearing on allegations that women journalists were sexually harassed and manhandled by male police officers during protests against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, made the remarks while responding to the allegations concerning the treatment of women journalists during the protests.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing around 32 petitions concerning alleged police excesses, the SIR exercise, protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and the powers of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.

Mehta said several people identified themselves as freelance journalists, carried microphones, recorded events and uploaded videos online. He argued that such activities had become common at protest sites, making it difficult for authorities to determine who was an independent journalist and who was creating reels.

“What is going on is reel-making; that happens even at the protest site. So, we do not know who is a reel maker, and who is an independent journalist," Mehta told the court.

However, the Solicitor General stressed that no woman should be treated inappropriately, including by female police personnel.

Centre Opposes Blanket Directions

Mehta also objected to the possibility of the court issuing broad directions, including the formation of a committee, as sought by senior advocate Indira Jaising.

He submitted that the court should first examine the police’s actions before deciding whether further intervention was necessary. He said the court could issue appropriate directions if it found that the police had failed to act adequately.

Mehta also opposed a blanket direction preventing the registration of FIRs against women journalists, arguing that such an order would be too broad. He assured the court that the Centre would file its response on affidavit within a week.

Chief Justice Surya Kant described the matter as serious, a view with which Mehta agreed. The Solicitor General said the law must take its course but urged the court not to reach a conclusion before examining the facts.

Jaising Questions Counter FIR Against Journalist

Senior advocate Indira Jaising questioned the registration of a counter-FIR against a woman journalist under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after she accused a Delhi Police officer of sexual harassment and manhandling.

Jaising argued that the case against the journalist appeared to have been registered before her allegations could be properly addressed. Questioning how the journalist could protect herself in such circumstances, she accused the police of misusing the SC/ST Act.

The woman journalist had alleged that a Delhi Police officer sexually harassed and manhandled her during a protest on October 3. Two other journalists who also accused the officer have been booked in connection with the case.

According to the police, the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police Vivek Bhagat.

The complaint stated that Bhagat was deployed at the Buta Singh roundabout on October 3 during a protest called by AISA’s Neha, demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Bhagat alleged that around 2.30 pm, a journalist pointed towards his nameplate, identified his caste and made derogatory remarks about his caste and appointment as an ACP. He claimed that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.