The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to grant an interim stay on the investigation into a First Information Report (FIR) registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against a woman journalist. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat, who alleged that the journalist and her colleagues subjected him to public humiliation and casteist slurs while he was discharging his duties during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 3.
Why did the Delhi High Court refuse to stay the investigation?
Justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice on the petitions filed by the woman journalist and a male journalist, the owner of 'Digi News', but refused to halt the probe. The Court stated it would hear the matter on merits after the police file their reply and listed the matter for final hearing on November 17, clarifying that no reasoned order rejecting the stay was being passed at this stage.
The controversy originates from events on October 3, when the female journalist alleged that ACP Bhagat inappropriately touched and pushed her while she was recording the detention of an activist during the protest. She subsequently filed a complaint at the Parliament Street police station on the same day; however, no FIR has been registered on her complaint to date.
Senior Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, appearing for the journalists, submitted that the woman journalist belongs to the Lyngdoh community of Nagaland, a Scheduled Tribe community of the Khasi tribe. He narrated that both journalists were covering the protest when the alleged sexual harassment occurred. The counsel argued that the SC/ST Act case filed by ACP Bhagat on October 13 was a retaliatory and revengeful action.
Chronology Of Complaints And FIR Registration
Event | Date | Time / Detail |
|---|---|---|
Alleged incident during CEC protest | October 3 | Female journalist alleges sexual harassment by ACP Bhagat |
Journalist's complaint at Parliament Street PS | October 3 | Complaint filed; no FIR registered yet |
ACP Bhagat's complaint | October 13 | Alleging casteist slurs and public humiliation |
FIR lodged on ACP's complaint | October 13 | Within 26 minutes of complaint receipt |
Highlighting the timeline, Senior Advocate Mir pointed out a delay of over 260 hours between the incident on October 3 and the lodging of the FIR by the police on October 13. He contrasted this with the speed of the subsequent registration, noting that once ACP Bhagat gave his complaint on October 13, the FIR was registered within 26 minutes. The counsel prayed for an interim stay on the investigation and sought protection from coercive action for both journalists, referencing a Supreme Court order granting interim protection to the woman journalist.
The FIR registered against the woman journalist and two others invokes Sections 221 (obstructing public servant), 356(2) (defamation), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside relevant provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
While the Court acknowledged the submissions regarding the timeline and the Supreme Court's protection order, it determined that the matter required detailed consideration. Justice Pushkarna directed the respondents to file a status report or reply before the next date of hearing. Both parties were granted liberty to file written submissions along with relevant judgments. The investigation will continue pending the final hearing.