Women journalists and police conduct: The people behind the camera become the story

A journalist goes to a protest to record what happens. But what if the person recording accuses the police of mistreating her?

That question is back in the spotlight in India's freedom of the press debate after allegations by three women journalists against Delhi Police personnel during protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The issue has renewed concerns with the safety of women reporters, the treatment of journalists during police operations and the need for accountability where allegations of misconduct are alleged.

Earlier cases, such as the detention of journalist Sakshi Joshi during the 2023 wrestlers' protest, illustrate the reasons to take the concerns seriously.

The cases are not related, and the allegations must be investigated individually. Together, they raise an important question: who watches the authorities when journalists themselves become complainants?

Jantar Mantar: Three women journalists make allegations

On 3 October 2026, three women journalists covering a protest in New Delhi alleged that Delhi Police personnel had sexually harassed and manhandled them during their detention.

The protests were related to demands for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Election Commission has faced criticism from opposition parties and protesters about the process, while the allegations of wrongful action remain disputed.

According to The Indian Express, the police said that protesters had been asked to disperse but refused. Officers cited restrictions on unauthorised gatherings under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The three journalists subsequently complained of alleged misconduct.

Delhi Police said it had received their complaints and moved them on to the Crime Branch for investigation. Medical examinations were also held, and investigators said that CCTV footage would be examined. These steps do not confirm whether the alleged misconduct occurred, though.

The controversy was renewed on 5 October, when around 17 people were detained outside the Parliament Street police station. They had gathered to demand an FIR and action against the officers accused of misconduct. One of the journalists who had made a complaint was among those detained.

Police said that prohibitory orders were in force and that Parliament Street was not a designated protest site. The detentions therefore became a separate point of contention: the protesters were asking for accountability, while the police cited restrictions on public gatherings.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognisance of the reported allegations on 8 October. It issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner seeking a detailed report within two weeks. The Commission said that, if the reported facts were true, the incident raised serious human rights concerns.

The notice is significant, but it is not a finding that the allegations have been proved.

The wider crackdown: Journalists detained during October protests

The allegations involving the three women journalists were part of wider confrontations between police and people covering protests against the Chief Election Commissioner.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) noted that at least 37 journalists were detained across New Delhi, Ahmedabad and Pune on 10 and 11 October. Several journalists reported being manhandled or obstructed, while others alleged that their equipment had been seized or that they had been pressured to delete footage.

Reuters also reported that nearly three dozen journalists were detained during the protests. Some said they had identified themselves as members of the press but were still taken into custody.

These are reported allegations, not proof that every detention was unlawful or that all officers acted improperly. Nevertheless, they raise concerns about whether journalists could perform their professional duties without unnecessary interference.

The Supreme Court also became involved in the wider dispute over the handling of protests in Delhi. On 11 October, the court addressed concerns about the detention of peaceful protesters and obstruction of professionals, including journalists. On 13 October, the Chief Justice indicated that petitions concerning the protests would be listed for hearing, with the matter adjourned until 15 October, according to contemporary reporting.

The latest developments should be differentiated from the investigation into the three women's complaints, whose outcome has not been established by the sources cited here.

Looking back: Sakshi Joshi's detention in 2023

The current controversy echoes the case of independent journalist Sakshi Joshi who was detained while covering protests by women wrestlers in Delhi in May 2023.

The wrestlers had been protesting against Wrestling Federation of India chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh over allegations of sexual harassment. Singh denied the allegations.

On 3 May 2023, Joshi attempted to film police personnel deployed near the protest site. According to her account to CPJ and information provided by the digital journalists' association Digipub, a police officer told her to stop recording. Joshi alleged that officers subsequently assaulted and detained her.

She was released after approximately an hour, according to CPJ, which called for an impartial investigation and accountability for the officers involved. Delhi Police did not immediately respond to CPJ's request for comment at the time.

The case drew attention because the journalist was trying to document a protest involving allegations of sexual harassment only for her to report alleged mistreatment herself.

The circumstances differ from those of October 2026. However, the central concern is similar: journalists must be able to record public events without facing unnecessary interference, and complaints about police conduct must be examined fairly.

September 2026: A dispute at a political event

Another case arose in September 2026, when two women journalists associated with 4PM News Network alleged that Delhi Police personnel assaulted and detained them near an event attended by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta in Saket.

The journalists said that they had gone to cover the event and alleged that police personnel had physically mistreated them. Delhi Police denied the allegation that officers had assaulted them for asking the Chief Minister questions. Police said the journalists had been detained after allegedly breaching a designated route for VIP movement.

The competing accounts are important. The journalists' allegations should not be presented as established facts, and the police's denial should not be treated as proof that no misconduct occurred.

The incident demonstrates the importance of transparent investigations. When journalists and police present different accounts of an encounter, evidence and an impartial inquiry are necessary to determine what happened.

When gender and caste are added to the risks

Not every case involving the safety of a woman journalist involves police misconduct. That distinction is important.

In February 2026, the NHRC took suo motu cognisance of reports that a woman journalist had been physically and sexually assaulted by a group while covering a students' protest at Delhi University's North Campus. Reports alleged that she was targeted after her caste became known.

The Commission sought a report from the Delhi Police Commissioner. Its intervention did not establish the allegations as fact, but it highlighted concerns about the safety of journalists covering contentious public events.

This case must not be confused with the October allegations against police personnel. Its relevance lies in the wider risks that journalists may face while reporting, including gender-based violence and caste discrimination.

Women journalists are not a single, uniform group, and their experiences differ. But when complaints involve sexual harassment or physical assault, the authorities must investigate them seriously, without prejudging either the complainant or the accused.

What does the law say?

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. Press freedom derives from this constitutional guarantee, although journalists do not have blanket immunity from laws that apply to everyone.

Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on specified grounds, including public order. Police may therefore regulate gatherings, manage crowds and act against unlawful conduct where the law permits.

However, maintaining public order should not give the police unlimited power to obstruct reporting.

Journalists may be moved away from immediate safety risks or detained where the law permits it as a condition, but displaying a press card should not impede on fair treatment, and recording police activity should not be treated as wrongdoing.

The central issue is whether police action is lawful, necessary and proportionate to the circumstances.

The real test is accountability

The incidents discussed here do not, by themselves, prove a single, systematic pattern of misconduct against women journalists. They involve different circumstances, different allegations and different stages of investigation.

What they do establish is the importance of transparent procedures when journalists report mistreatment.

In the October case, the Crime Branch investigation and the NHRC's request for a report are important steps. The public still needs clear information about the findings, the evidence examined and any action taken.

The same principle applies to earlier cases. Complaints should be investigated fairly, the available evidence preserved, and any proven misconduct addressed through the appropriate legal process.

The question is not whether journalists should be exempt from the law. They should not. It is whether the law is applied fairly, whether police can explain their actions and whether journalists can report on public events without unnecessary intimidation or interference.

A protest may be politically contentious. Police may face difficult crowd-control decisions. But the public's right to receive information depends on reporters being able to document what happens.

A journalist's job is to record the story, not become the story because of alleged misconduct by those tasked with maintaining order. When journalists raise concerns about their own safety, accountability must be more than a promise: it must be demonstrated through a fair and transparent process.