A woman journalist whose molestation complaint is pending has been protected from coercive action by the Supreme Court, which also said a panel examining women journalists’ complaints from the Delhi protests should be predominantly or exclusively women.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that a woman journalist whose complaint of alleged molestation by a police officer during the Delhi protests is pending be protected from coercive action, and agreed prima facie that a committee to examine complaints by women journalists must be composed predominantly or exclusively of women [Network of Women in Media petition and connected matters].
The order was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi in a petition argued by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on the needs of women journalists covering protests. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the authorities.
A separate committee headed by a woman
Jaising submitted that women journalists covering protests form a distinct class who exercise their right to work alongside their rights to speech and protest, and are particularly vulnerable to being pushed and pulled around by male police officers. She asked for a separate inquiry committee in line with the Vishaka guidelines, headed by a woman chairperson and comprising a retired woman judge, a retired woman IPS officer and civil society representatives. “We do not want serving IPS officers,” she said.
The Chief Justice agreed that the names of women willing to file affidavits would be taken in sealed cover:
“Yes. In sealed cover only. The vulnerability will have to be very sensitively and very cautiously taken care of by the Court. We are also prima facie agreeing that the committee in your matter must be predominantly or exclusively composed of women.”
The committee, he said, may comprise a former woman judge, a former woman IPS officer, and a former woman social worker or social activist with a known track record.
Two versions of one incident
Jaising told the Court that a woman she represents alleges she was molested, but no FIR was registered when she approached the police, while the officer concerned has gone to the Delhi High Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging that she used casteist remarks against him. She sought an order that no coercive action be taken against any woman journalist who had made a complaint.
The Solicitor General asked the Court to hear the other version before passing orders. Without referring to the particular woman, he said a video had been technologically analysed and found to be AI-generated, and that the material would be placed on record, adding: “Nonetheless, we will not minimise the allegation.” He opposed constituting a committee at this stage and called a blanket no-FIR direction “too wide”, offering to file a reply within a week and stating that the particular journalist would not be arrested if she cooperated.
Protection limited to the specific case
Justice Bagchi declined to extend protection to all women journalists: “We cannot make it that wide. It will be restricted to the specific instance you have given in the petition, and also the names of the persons you are giving in the enclosed material.” The Chief Justice said the Court had to strike a balance between access to justice for those who make allegations and the right of others to file complaints. Dictating the order, he recorded:
“The journalist whose complaint with respect to the alleged molestation is pending consideration be protected from coercive action.”
Jaising was permitted to hand over, in sealed covers during the day, the material collected by the petitioner and the names of former judges, former police officers or social activists for the committee.
The road to Thursday’s hearing
The litigation began before the protests. On October 9, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that there could be no complete prohibition on Metro and train services in Delhi 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. A contempt petition by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi followed on October 10, alleging Metro station closures and train cancellations in breach of that order, alongside complaints of mass detentions and a mobile internet shutdown.
At a special Sunday sitting on October 11, Justices Bagchi and Mohana 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, and 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 by and against the woman journalist are untested. She is presumed innocent in the case against her, the officer’s account has not been examined, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits. Her identity has not been disclosed.
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