Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Allows Investigation into Journalists Over SC/ST Act FIR
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Court Refuses to Halt Probe of Journalists Accused of Casteist Remarks
On October 27, 2026, a bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court declined to stay the investigation into a First Information Report (FIR) lodged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR, filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat, alleges that a woman journalist and two colleagues used caste-based slurs, publicly humiliated the officer and obstructed his duties during a protest on October 3. The court issued notice to the Delhi Police and ACP Bhagat and set a final-hearing date for November 16.
Background & Context
The dispute stems from a protest near Jantar Mantar on October 3, organized against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The woman journalist—identified in reports as “Rosy”—recorded the detention of an activist and later filed a sexual-assault complaint against ACP Bhagat, alleging inappropriate touching. Bhagat denied the allegation and, on October 13, filed a complaint that led to the FIR against the journalist and two others, including male journalist Gajendra Singh of “Digi News”. The FIR cites sections 221, 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alongside provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Data & Statistics
- Date of protest: October 3, 2026
- Date FIR registered: October 13, 2026 (Parliament Street police station)
- Statutory provisions invoked: BNS sections 221, 356(2), 3(5); SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(p-s) (per later reporting)
- Next hearing: November 16, 2026 (final hearing)
Official Statements & Responses
- ACP Vivek Bhagat – Accused the journalists of making casteist remarks and defaming him while on duty.
- Senior Advocate Tanvir Mir (representing the journalists) – Called the FIR a “revengeful” measure intended to coerce the woman journalist into withdrawing her sexual-assault complaint. He cited a recent Supreme Court order restraining coercive action against her and urged similar protection for the male colleague.
- Delhi Police Crime Branch – Confirmed it is investigating both the journalist’s sexual-assault complaint and the FIR lodged by ACP Bhagat.
Criticism & Opposition
Tanvir Mir argued that the FIR is a misuse of power, noting a ten-day gap between the alleged assault and the journalist’s reporting, contrasted with the FIR being filed within half an hour of the officer’s complaint.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Delay vs. FIR timing: The journalist’s account notes a ten-day delay in reporting the alleged assault, while the police filed the FIR against her within thirty minutes of receiving Bhagat’s complaint.
- Status of the sexual-assault FIR: The journalist claims no FIR was registered on her complaint at the time the SC/ST Act FIR was lodged, a point not addressed in the police response.
- Scope of charges: Some reports list SC/ST Act provisions as sections 3(1)(p-s), while others reference only the general Act, indicating inconsistency.
What’s Next
The Delhi High Court will hear the parties’ written replies before the final hearing on November 16, 2026. The decision will determine whether the investigation proceeds pending a merits hearing and whether any interim relief—such as protection from arrest for the journalists—will be granted.