Expression and profession, together: the Chief Justice has said that is what a journalist exercises, and why protecting journalists at protests becomes “all the more important”.
New Delhi: Petitions over the alleged mistreatment of reporters, women journalists in particular, who covered the October 10 protests in Delhi were heard by the Supreme Court on Thursday, and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant used the occasion to stress the dual constitutional rights that journalists exercise [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters].
Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi formed the Bench. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued on behalf of women journalists, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the authorities.
What the Chief Justice said
He remarked:
“As pointed out, journalists pursue two rights together, not only the right to expression but also the right to carry on a trade or profession. That makes the need to protect journalists all the more important.”
The observation followed a submission by Jaising. Women journalists who cover protests, she said, are a distinct class: they exercise their right to work under Article 19(1)(g) in addition to their rights to speech and protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
Who counts as a journalist
Justice Bagchi pointed out that identifying who is a journalist, and what protection each category should get, is a larger question:
“Whether they are accredited journalists, individual freelance journalists, influencers, etc., there will be layers of protection for media journalists. That is a larger question.”
The Chief Justice added: “Out of that, there will be certain categories to whom an extra level of protection will be required.” Justice Bagchi noted that “even the Working Journalists Act says there are classes amongst journalists.”
The authorities’ side of the exchange
The Solicitor General’s argument was that, in the age of digital technology, anyone holding a mobile phone is a journalist of sorts, and that people calling themselves freelance journalists record and upload videos from protest sites. “So we do not know who is a reel-maker and who is an independent journalist. But nobody should be inappropriately dealt with. Including female police personnel,” he said. Jaising answered: “There is a right to be an independent journalist.” She also asked for a national protocol on how journalists are to be dealt with at protests, submitting that there is none.
As immediate relief, the Court directed that a woman journalist whose complaint of alleged molestation is pending be protected from coercive action. It also indicated, prima facie, that a committee to examine women journalists’ complaints should be composed predominantly or exclusively of women.
Where the petitions came from
The story starts before the protests. On October 9, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that Metro and train services in Delhi could not be completely prohibited ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and directed that services run in a regulated manner. The next day, Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed a contempt petition alleging Metro station closures and train cancellations in breach of that order, along with complaints of mass detentions and a mobile internet shutdown.
Justices Bagchi and Mohana held a special sitting on Sunday, October 11. They recorded a prima facie case, issued notice to the alleged contemnors, and passed ad-interim directions that Metro and rail services function normally, that people move freely, that internet services remain undisturbed and that no one be illegally detained. They also ordered a Section 163 notice board near the Court removed. Habeas petitions, including one by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, were heard with it.
The women journalists’ petitions reached the Court on October 13, when the Chief Justice asked that a senior Delhi Police officer remain present to explain alleged assaults on women journalists covering the protests. The Network of Women in Media, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, and the Free Speech Collective, through a contempt plea, had both moved the Court, and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists filed a separate Article 32 petition alleging assault and detention of reporters.
The allegations raised in these petitions, and the authorities’ responses to them, are untested. The Court has issued notice and has expressed no view on the merits.
Case: Batch of petitions on the October 10 Delhi protests, including Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan [Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026] and connected matters
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Dr A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, N. Hariharan, C.U. Singh, Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shoeb Alam, Sanjay Hegde, Indira Jaising, Mukta Gupta and Gaurav Bhatia, with Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nizam Pasha, for various petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the authorities