Who is a Journalist? SC Flags Dilemma Amid Delhi Protest Assault Claims
The Supreme Court discusses the challenge of protecting real journalists amid allegations of police assault during Delhi protests.
The Supreme Court of India has raised a critical question regarding the definition of a journalist in the digital age, noting that the right to freedom of expression makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between accredited reporters and citizens claiming the title. This observation came during a hearing on Thursday concerning allegations of harassment, assault, and detention of journalists during the protests in Delhi on October 10.
The Struggle to Define 'Journalist'
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed concern over the blurring lines between professional news gatherers and the general public. Justice Bagchi remarked that the difficulty arises when "everyone claims to be a journalist" under the umbrella of Article 19, which guarantees the freedom of expression.
The Court indicated that it must now determine different "layers of protection" for those accredited to credible news organizations, separating them from social media influencers and other digital content creators.
Representing the Centre and the Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta echoed these concerns, stating that in the modern era, "anybody with a phone" can claim to be a journalist. He further argued that some individuals claiming to be freelance journalists are actually "reel makers," making it nearly impossible for authorities on the ground to verify identities during volatile situations. However, the Solicitor General maintained that no woman, regardless of her role, should be subjected to harassment.
Serious Allegations of Police Brutality
The legal discourse was punctuated by grave allegations of violence. Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh informed the court that a woman journalist she represents was severely assaulted by a male Delhi police officer during the protests on October 10 and 11. Jaisingh also offered to provide a sealed cover report containing the names of several other women journalists who were allegedly manhandled and harassed.
Taking a stern view of these claims, the Supreme Court described the issues as "very serious" and required thorough examination. The bench explicitly directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that no coercive action is taken against the woman journalist in question.
Demand for Independent Probe
While Indira Jaisingh proposed the formation of a committee—consisting of former women judges and former IPS officers—to investigate the allegations, the Court indicated that the current proceedings would be restricted to the specific victim mentioned in the petition. The bench is currently evaluating whether an independent investigation agency is necessary to probe the specific allegations against certain police officials.
Broader Violence and Legal Concerns
The scope of the Court's concern extended beyond the media. The bench noted that there are four separate pleas regarding attacks on lawyers, and the Court has issued notices to the authorities seeking their response on these matters.
Further distressing claims were brought forward by Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, who represented a protester. He alleged that his client had been beaten at a police station to the point of bleeding, stating that a pen drive containing a recording of the assault is available as evidence.
The Court also acknowledged that the protests had adversely affected other citizens, including taxi drivers and hawkers. Reaffirming its accessibility, the Court stated, "Our doors are open for everyone," as it awaits the Union government's response regarding the alleged assaults on journalists, lawyers, and protesters.