Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Refuses to Stay SC/ST Act Probe Against Journalists
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On October 16, 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court declined an urgent order to stay the investigation into a FIR lodged by ACP Vivek Bhagat. The FIR, filed after a protest at Jantar Mantar on October 3, accuses journalist Rosy, journalist Gajendra Singh and others of caste-based slurs, public humiliation, obstruction of duty and defamation. The court listed the matter for October 27 after the Dussehra vacation. The High Court will be closed from October 19 to October 26.
Background & Context
The October 3 protest focused on the Election Commission and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. During the demonstration, ACP Bhagat alleged that Rosy identified his Megh/Meghwal caste and questioned his appointment. Rosy later complained that Bhagat had inappropriately touched and pushed her, filing a sexual-harassment complaint now examined by the Delhi Police Crime Branch. Bhagat’s complaint led to the FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sections 221, 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Data & Statistics
- FIR date: October 13 (Parliament Street police station).
- Legal provisions: SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 221 (obstructing a public servant), Section 356(2) (defamation), Section 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS.
- Individuals named: Rosy, Gajendra Singh, and members of the Cockroach Janta Party – Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, Sourav Das, Ratna Singh.
- Court schedule: Hearing deferred to October 27; High Court recess October 19-26.
Official Statements & Responses
- Supreme Court (interim protection): A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted interim protection from coercive action to the journalist, limiting relief to the specific petitioned instance and inviting the Centre to propose guidelines for police-journalist interactions during protests.
- Counsel for the journalist (advocate Saimon Farooqui): Stated that the Supreme Court’s October 15 direction barred coercive action and sought assurance that the state would not proceed against the journalist.
- Police position: The State counsel said the journalist was already protected by the Supreme Court and that the FIR was filed in accordance with law.
Verbatim Quotes
- “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,” — Justice Bagchi
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources uniformly report the High Court’s refusal to stay the probe and the Supreme Court’s limited interim protection. Details differ on the exact wording of the Supreme Court’s direction and whether the journalist’s sexual-harassment complaint has resulted in a formal FIR; some outlets note no FIR has been registered, while others say the Crime Branch is investigating. No public statement from ACP Bhagat beyond the FIR content has been provided.
What’s Next
The Delhi High Court will hear the matter on October 27. The Supreme Court’s request for guidelines on police interactions with journalists could influence future legal frameworks for media-law enforcement relations.