Footage of an alleged sexual assault on a woman journalist at a protest against the Chief Election Commissioner must be preserved within three days of the order, a Delhi court has directed, while also seeking from the Delhi Police a point-wise Action Taken Report on her plea for an FIR against Assistant Commissioner of Police Vivek Bhagat. The allegations are untested.
New Delhi: Two directions came from a Patiala House Courts magistrate on Tuesday (November 3) on a woman journalist’s complaint seeking an FIR against ACP Vivek Bhagat: the Station House Officer of Parliament Street Police Station must file a point-wise action taken report, and CCTV and other digital evidence from the spot must be preserved. The journalist alleges that the officer sexually assaulted and manhandled her while she was covering a protest near Jantar Mantar on October 3 [Complainant v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
Judicial Magistrate First Class Kautuk Bhardwaj issued the directions and fixed December 1, 2026 as the next date, when the report is to be filed.
Preservation of footage
Her counsel had told the court that the alleged incident was captured on CCTV cameras covering the spot, and sought urgent directions to preserve the footage. Considering the urgency, the court ordered:
“In light of the submission and considering the urgency, SHO concerned shall ensure that all necessary steps are taken within 03 days from the receipt of this order, regarding the preservation of CCTV footage pertaining to the place of incident as well as any other digital evidence including body camera footage. The compliance report qua preservation of footage shall be filed within a week.”
What the police must report
The police have been asked to state, point-wise, whether the complainant had approached them, what action was taken on her complaint, and whether any cognizable offence was made out against the ACP after inquiry or investigation. If one was, the report must say whether an FIR had been registered and where the investigation stands. If no cognizable offence was found, it must say whether the complainant was informed.
The complaint
The journalist approached the court stating that the Delhi Police had not registered an FIR even a month after her complaint. According to that complaint, the officer touched her inappropriately and pushed her after she questioned the absence of women police personnel while protesters were being detained at a demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. She lodged a complaint at Parliament Street police station the same evening, which was later transferred to the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
The cross-case
ACP Bhagat has separately complained against the journalist, and the Delhi Police registered an FIR against her under the SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court has restrained coercive action against her, while the Delhi High Court has declined to stay the investigation in that FIR. Neither side’s allegations have been tested.
Why the order matters
Where the police do not act on a complaint of a cognizable offence, a magistrate can call for a report before deciding whether to direct registration of an FIR. The order does exactly that. Its direction to preserve CCTV and bodycam footage within three days speaks to the risk of digital evidence being overwritten while the dispute goes on. The court has not directed an FIR, made any finding on the allegations, or expressed a view on the merits. The allegations against ACP Bhagat are untested and he is presumed innocent, as is the journalist in the case registered against her.
Case Title: Complainant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (complaint seeking registration of FIR against ACP Vivek Bhagat)
Court: Judicial Magistrate First Class Kautuk Bhardwaj, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Next Date: December 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Saimon Farooqui and Ayan Siddiqui for the complainant