When reporters became the story: Inside the detention of journalists during Delhi's CJP protest

The day reporting became a question of press freedom

A journalist's job is to report what is happening, even when the events are politically sensitive. But on 10 October, as Delhi witnessed a major police operation ahead of the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) planned protest, journalists covering the developments found themselves among those being detained.

Reporters from Newslaundry, Scroll, Navbharat Times, The Quint and Malayalam news channel Reporter TV were among those reportedly detained. Reuters also reported that a journalist from its organisation was briefly detained before being released. Several journalists said they had identified themselves as media personnel, with some reporting that they had displayed their press cards before being taken away.

The incident raises an important question: when the police restrict a protest, what happens to the journalists documenting how those restrictions are enforced?

The issue is not simply how many reporters were detained. It is also whether they could perform their professional duties, whether their equipment was returned and whether the authorities explained the reasons for their detention.

To understand why the incident matters, we need to look at what happened on the ground and what it reveals about the relationship between policing and press freedom.

Who was detained, and what do we know?

The detentions were reported at multiple locations across Delhi, rather than only at the planned protest venue.

Newslaundry reported that three of its reporters — Ashwine Singh, Savyasachi Astha and Anmol Pritam — and intern Anshu Gupta were detained while covering the protest. The organisation said all four had been released and had returned to reporting.

Several sources also alleged that police seized Anmol's and Anshu's phones, while Ashwine was pushed and his phone was snatched. According to the outlet, all three devices belonged to the organisation and were used for reporting. These allegations were reported by Newslaundry and should not be treated as independent findings of misconduct.

The outlet further reported that around 30 people, including journalists and protesters, were placed on a bus and taken to Chhatrasal Stadium in north Delhi. It said its reporters identified themselves as media personnel but were reportedly told, “Koi media nahin hai.”

Scroll investigative reporter Ayush Tiwari was detained near ITO. According to Scroll's executive editor, Supriya Sharma, he had his press card prominently displayed and repeatedly told police that he was a journalist. He was nevertheless taken away. Tiwari was later released after the police bus carrying him nearly caught fire, according to his own account.

Scroll's political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, was also detained near CR Park in south Delhi while waiting for a taxi. In his account published by Scroll, Daniyal said police stopped him, searched his bag, photographed his Aadhaar card and took him away on a bus.

He further alleged that police personnel tried to pressure him into deleting videos he had recorded of the detention. He said he refused and was released at around 2.30 pm. These details come from Daniyal's first-person account; the article does not independently establish the officers' motives.

Two Navbharat Times journalists, Hritik Joshi and Rahul Charas, were also detained while filming in Delhi. The newspaper's editor, Ashish Pandey, said they were carrying visible media identity cards and alleged that police had misbehaved with Rahul. Both journalists were subsequently released.

The Quint also reported the detention of its journalist Sarthak Jaiswal. Malayalam news channel Reporter TV reported that two of its women journalists, Roshni Rajan and Farza TM, were taken away while covering the agitation.

The list was not limited to Delhi. Scroll reported that its journalist Divya Aslesha was detained in Pune while covering protests related to the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation.

These are reported cases, not a complete independently verified count of all detained media workers.

Why were journalists caught up in the crackdown?

The detentions took place amid heightened security ahead of the CJP's planned demonstration at Jantar Mantar.

The party called for the protest to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over concerns about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and allegations of irregularities in the revision process.

The Election Commission's exercise has become politically contentious. Critics argue that the revision risks excluding eligible voters, while the Commission maintains that electoral roll revisions are intended to improve accuracy. Allegations of politically motivated deletions remain disputed.

Delhi Police denied permission for the planned demonstration, citing the timing of the application, compliance with prescribed procedures and concerns about public safety and law and order. The Indian Express reported that the application was submitted on 7 October, despite a prescribed notice period of ten days.

Security measures extended across the capital. Reuters reported that police and paramilitary personnel were deployed in large numbers, mobile internet services were suspended in central Delhi, and dozens of Metro stations and markets were shut. The Indian Express also reported detentions at several locations, including the airport and areas outside political leaders' residences.

This was the environment in which journalists were working.

However, a distinction must be made between restricting a demonstration and detaining someone who is covering it. Authorities may impose lawful restrictions to maintain public order, but those restrictions do not automatically justify detaining journalists.

The circumstances of each detention matter: where it happened, what the person was doing, whether the police provided a reason and how long the person was held.

The available reports establish that several journalists were detained while carrying out reporting duties. They do not establish that every detention occurred for the same reason.

The phones matter as much as the detentions

One of the most significant aspects of the incident was the reported seizure of journalists' phones.

For a reporter covering a fast-moving demonstration, a phone is not simply a personal device. It can be used to record video, photograph police action, contact an editor, verify information and transmit footage from the ground.

When reporting equipment is seized, the consequences may continue even after the journalist is released.

Newslaundry said police took two of its reporters' phones and snatched a third. Scroll's Shoaib Daniyal separately alleged that police personnel tried to make him delete videos he had recorded during his detention.

These are separate incidents, but together they raise questions about journalists' ability to preserve and report what they witness.

The important unanswered questions include whether all the devices were returned, whether any recorded material was lost or accessed, and what legal grounds were cited for the reported seizure of equipment.

The reports reviewed for this article do not establish all these details.

This is why the issue cannot be measured only by how quickly a journalist is released. The ability to retain footage, communicate with an editor and continue reporting also matters.

What do press freedom organisations say?

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called on Delhi Police to release detained journalists and media workers, return their equipment, investigate reports of physical abuse and allow the press to cover the protests and police response without interference.

The organisation confirmed the detention of three Newslaundry reporters and Scroll's Ayush Tiwari, while saying it was working to identify other detained journalists. It stressed that a free and independent press is essential to democracy.

DIGIPUB News India Foundation also condemned the reported detentions. It called for journalists to be released, their devices returned and alleged misconduct addressed. The National Alliance of Journalists also joined the criticism.

These statements reflect concerns raised by press freedom organisations. They are not judicial findings that the police acted unlawfully.

That distinction matters. Allegations of misconduct must be investigated, and the authorities should have an opportunity to explain their actions. Equally, invoking public order cannot remove the need for scrutiny of how police powers are exercised.

Reuters reported that there was no immediate comment from the police on the detentions. A comprehensive official explanation for the individual cases was not available in the reports reviewed for this article.

Is a press card enough to protect a journalist?

Saturday's events raise a difficult question for journalists working across different kinds of media.

Some reporters work for established newspapers and television channels. Others work for digital newsrooms, independent publications or online platforms. Their formats may differ, but the essential task remains the same: gathering and communicating information to the public.

Newslaundry reported that police were distinguishing between YouTube journalists and traditional media workers at locations around the protest. According to the outlet, some digital creators were denied access, while police sought government-mandated press accreditation from media personnel. This account has not been independently verified in full.

A press card can help establish a person's professional identity, but carrying one does not provide blanket immunity from lawful police action. Equally, a journalist should not be prevented from carrying out legitimate reporting simply because they work for a digital publication rather than a traditional news organisation.

The central concern is whether access rules are transparent, consistently applied and compatible with the public's interest in independent reporting.

What does the law say?

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. A free press is central to the exercise of that right.

Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom on specified grounds. Journalists do not have blanket immunity from detention or other lawful police action simply because they are working.

The key questions are whether the action has a lawful basis, whether the relevant procedures are followed and whether restrictions are proportionate to the circumstances.

The right to report on a public event is not an unrestricted right to enter every restricted area. But neither should public order be used as a general justification for obstructing legitimate journalism.

In this case, the reported detentions and equipment seizures warrant clear explanations from the authorities, particularly where journalists say they were taken away despite identifying themselves as media personnel.

The available reporting does not establish the legal grounds for every individual detention or equipment seizure. Those details should be confirmed before drawing conclusions about the legality of each case.

The bigger story: Who watches the people enforcing the restrictions?

The most revealing aspect of 10 October may not be the number of journalists detained, but the circumstances in which some of them were taken away.

Some journalists were reportedly detained while covering the protest; others said they were picked up away from Jantar Mantar. Newslaundry reported that its reporters were taken away alongside protesters, while Scroll's Shoaib Daniyal said he was detained near his home while waiting for a taxi. ([Newslaundry][2])

These accounts raise a serious question: can the public fully understand a police operation if the people documenting it are themselves caught up in that operation?

It would be premature to conclude that the authorities intended to silence the press. The reported detentions alone do not establish that motive.

But intent is not the only issue. Even without proof of a deliberate attempt to suppress reporting, detaining journalists can interrupt the flow of information and make it harder for the public to understand what happened.

Footage, eyewitness accounts and on-the-ground reporting help people assess competing claims made by protesters, police and political leaders. When that reporting is interrupted, the public loses an important means of scrutinising events.

As of the latest reports reviewed on 10 October, several detained journalists had been released. However, questions remained about the reported treatment of journalists, the handling of their equipment and the reasons for their detention.

The next steps matter: a clear account from the police, confirmation that all equipment has been returned, and appropriate investigation of specific allegations of physical mistreatment.

The central question is not whether journalists should be above the law. It is whether the law is being applied in a way that allows them to do their job.

When reporters covering a protest become part of the police operation they are documenting, press freedom is no longer an abstract debate. It becomes a question of whether the public can see, hear and independently understand what is happening on its streets.