Who Is Accountable for the Allegations of Women’s Harassment in Delhi’s Protests?

Delhi’s protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have produced a second, increasingly urgent controversy: allegations that women protesters, journalists and lawyers were manhandled or subjected to sexual misconduct by Delhi Police personnel while authorities were detaining demonstrators. The allegations are still under investigation, but they have emerged alongside a documented pattern of mass detentions, heavy barricading and restrictions on access to Jantar Mantar between October 2 and 4.

The scale of the crackdown provides the immediate context. More than 500 people were detained on October 2 as Opposition parties, student organisations and civil-society groups attempted to reach Jantar Mantar to protest against Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Around 150 more were detained on October 3, including AISA president Neha Bora, activist Yogendra Yadav and senior advocate Prashant Bhushan. On October 4, around 120 protesters were again detained as the mobilisation entered its third day. The protests continued amid heavy police barricading and a large security deployment.

It was during this escalation that allegations involving women began to multiply. Three women journalists covering the October 3 protest complained to Delhi Police of sexual harassment and manhandling. One complainant alleged that **ACP Vivek Bhagat** sexually assaulted her while she was recording the detention of Neha Bora and questioned why women police personnel were absent. Another journalist alleged that an officer touched her inappropriately while she was recording the detention of Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan. A third journalist also complained of inappropriate touching. The allegations have not been established as fact. Delhi Police transferred the complaints to the Crime Branch for a “fair and impartial” inquiry; statements were recorded, medical examinations were conducted and CCTV footage is to be examined.

But the complaints were not limited to journalists. AISA alleged that women protesters, journalists and lawyers were manhandled by male police personnel and that several women complained of being groped. On October 5, a woman protester who had been detained separately alleged that female constables at Delhi Cantonment police station hit her, scratched her face and abused her. Another detainee alleged that female police personnel hit her and other protesters while they were being held. Delhi Police has denied that its personnel assaulted detainees. These allegations, too, require investigation rather than being treated as established findings.

The absence of women personnel during some of the disputed detentions has become an important part of the allegations. One journalist said she intervened after seeing female protesters, including Bora, being detained without women police officers present; she then alleged that a male officer pushed and shoved her. The police account is that protesters had been informed of restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS and were detained after refusing to disperse.

The handling of the complaints has itself become part of the controversy. Journalists and protesters spent hours outside Parliament Street police station demanding registration of an FIR and access to CCTV footage. On October 5, around 17 people, including journalists and one of the alleged victims, were detained after remaining outside the police station overnight. They were taken to Delhi Cantonment police station. The police said Section 163 restrictions were in force and that protesters had been asked to disperse. Detainees, however, alleged that they were assaulted inside the station — claims Delhi Police denied.

The controversy has consequently moved beyond the conduct of individual officers. The Press Council of India and journalist organisations have expressed concern, while Opposition leaders have demanded accountability. The allegations against ACP Vivek Bhagat have become particularly prominent, but no FIR had been registered against him as of October 5, and the complaint remains subject to the Crime Branch inquiry.

The larger question, therefore, is not simply what happened to three women journalists. It is whether the policing of the anti-CEC protests is producing a wider pattern of allegations involving women who were protesting, reporting or documenting detentions. The evidence now before investigators — CCTV footage, medical examinations, witness accounts, complaints and police records — will be crucial in separating established facts from competing accounts.

For a protest centred on institutional accountability, the police response has created another test: whether the state’s policing of dissent, particularly its treatment of women during detention, can itself withstand the scrutiny being demanded from the Election Commission.