The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that authorities face significant challenges in distinguishing between independent journalists and individuals creating social media content at protest sites. The submission was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during a hearing concerning allegations of police misconduct against women journalists during protests related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is currently hearing approximately 32 petitions. These petitions encompass a range of issues, including allegations of sexual harassment and physical manhandling by police, the ongoing SIR exercise, protests directed at Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and questions surrounding the powers vested in the Election Commission of India.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Mehta highlighted the prevalence of individuals carrying recording equipment at sensitive protest locations. He argued that because many people now use microphones to record events and upload videos online, it has become difficult for security personnel to determine who is a professional journalist and who is merely engaged in “reel-making.” Mehta stated, “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.”
Despite this characterization, the Solicitor General emphasized that the government maintains that no woman should be subjected to inappropriate treatment, whether by male or female police officers. The Centre, however, strongly opposed the imposition of blanket directions by the court regarding police conduct, arguing that the judiciary should examine specific actions rather than issue broad mandates before the facts are fully presented. Mehta assured the court that the government would file its formal response via an affidavit within the coming week.
The hearing also saw pointed arguments from senior advocate Indira Jaising, who represented concerns regarding the treatment of women in the media. Jaising specifically questioned the registration of a counter-FIR against a woman journalist under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The journalist had previously accused a Delhi Police officer of sexual harassment and physical assault during a protest on October 3.
Jaising alleged that the counter-case appeared to be an attempt to preemptively address or dismiss the journalist's harassment claims, accusing the police of misusing the SC/ST Act. According to police records, the FIR was registered following a complaint by Assistant Commissioner of Police Vivek Bhagat. The officer alleged that during the protest near the Buta Singh roundabout, the journalist identified his nameplate and made derogatory remarks regarding his caste and his appointment as an ACP.
Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the gravity of the situation, noting that the matters raised were serious. The Solicitor General agreed with this assessment but urged the court not to reach any immediate conclusions, maintaining that the legal process should be allowed to take its course based on verified facts. The Supreme Court continues to deliberate on the scope of future intervention, balancing the need for protecting media personnel against the administrative requirements of maintaining order at public demonstrations.
Comments