When women protest: Police power and the fight for accountability in India

When protectors face questions

A woman joins a protest to demand better wages, question an electoral decision or challenge a government policy. She expects disagreement, perhaps even detention. But what happens when she alleges that the very authorities responsible for maintaining order have mistreated her?

The question isn't whether police have the power to control demonstrations they do, but whether that power is exercised lawfully, proportionately and without unnecessary violence.

Allegations involving women journalists in Delhi, the experiences of women workers in Noida and earlier incidents in West Bengal reveal a larger question about India's democratic institutions: what safeguards exist when people exercising their right to protest accuse the police of crossing the line?

The incidents must be examined individually. An allegation isn't always proof of wrongdoing and lawful detention isn't necessarily police brutality. But complaints deserve serious investigation, regardless of who makes them.

The issue isn't whether women should be allowed to break the law without consequences. It's whether the law protects their rights even when they challenge those in power.

Delhi, October 2026: When journalists become part of the story

Protests in Delhi and Mumbai against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls led to allegations of police excesses against journalists.

The Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) issued a statement on 12 October condemning the alleged assault and detention of journalists, including women reporters covering the protests. The organisation said journalists had identified themselves as members of the press but were nevertheless pushed, handled aggressively and detained. These are allegations made by the organisation, not findings that every incident of police action was unlawful.

The Committee to Protect Journalists separately reported that at least 37 journalists had been detained over the two days, with several allegedly assaulted. Its account identified reporters from multiple media organisations who were detained while covering the demonstrations.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which sought the personal presence of a senior Delhi Police officer on 15 October to respond to allegations that women journalists had been assaulted and detained while covering the protests. The hearing was adjourned to that date. The court's request for an explanation shouldn't be mistaken for a final finding that the allegations had been proved.

There is also important legal context. The Supreme Court issued directions concerning the protests, including that journalists, lawyers and other professionals should not be hindered in carrying out their professional duties. The court recorded an assurance from the authorities on this point. NWMI subsequently raised concerns about the treatment of journalists despite those directions.

The significance extends beyond journalism. Reporters have a professional responsibility to document public events, but ordinary women protesters have rights too. A woman doesn't lose her right to dignity because she joins a demonstration, and a journalist doesn't lose the right to report because the event is politically sensitive.

When those recording a confrontation allege that they were targeted, another concern emerges: whether the public can obtain an independent account of what happened.

Noida: The women whose protests do not always make headlines

The experiences of women workers in Noida offer another perspective on police action against protesters.

Thousands of workers took to the streets in the industrial city to demand higher minimum wages. The agitation followed economic pressures that had affected working-class incomes. Uttar Pradesh authorities detained hundreds of protesters, and some remained in custody for months.

An investigation published by Scroll on 25 September documented the experiences of three women connected to the protests: a factory worker who was also an activist, a domestic worker seeking better working conditions and an artist who joined the demonstrations in solidarity.

The report stated that two of the women remained in jail months later, facing cases in which police alleged that they had incited violence.

Their experiences raise a question that can disappear beneath the headlines about arrests and public disorder: what happens to women after a protest ends?

For a worker dependent on daily wages, detention can mean lost income. Legal proceedings can also create uncertainty for families and disrupt employment. These consequences vary from person to person, but they deserve attention when assessing the broader impact of protest-related arrests.

At the same time, the criminal allegations against protesters must be assessed independently from allegations of police misconduct. Detention doesn't establish guilt, just as a complaint of mistreatment doesn't by itself prove that an officer acted unlawfully.

The need is for fair proceedings, access to legal remedies and an impartial examination of any alleged abuse.

This is where the experience of ordinary women becomes central to the story. A prominent public figure may have access to lawyers, journalists and a large audience. A factory worker or domestic worker may have fewer resources to challenge what she believes was an unlawful action.

Accountability shouldn't depend on how famous a woman is, how many people follow her online or whether her protest attracts national attention.

West Bengal: Earlier incidents, continuing questions

The concerns raised in Delhi have historical parallels in West Bengal. Women protesting over food security, agrarian distress and law-and-order concerns marched towards Nabanna, the state administrative headquarters. A complaint alleged that police personnel assaulted the protesters using lathis, tear gas and water cannons. It also raised concerns about the alleged absence of women police personnel.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued notices to the West Bengal Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and Kolkata Police Commissioner, seeking reports on the allegations. The Commission said that, if the allegations were true, they raised serious human-rights concerns. This was an inquiry into allegations, not a final finding that every claim had been proved.

A further case emerged during the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha's Nabanna Chalo rally on 8 October 2020. In April 2023, the NHRC concluded, on the basis of the material before it, that excessive and disproportionate force had been used against protesters. It highlighted the treatment of women, including one who suffered a fractured finger and another whose hair was pulled. The Commission asked the state government to explain why monetary relief should not be recommended for the victims. These incidents are different in their circumstances and evidentiary status, but both show that concerns about the treatment of women protesters have reached India's human-rights institutions before.

The issue cannot be reduced to one political party, one state government or one demonstration. It concerns the standards that police forces must follow, regardless of who organises a protest.

What does the law say?

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Both rights are subject to constitutionally permitted restrictions.

Police authorities can regulate demonstrations to maintain public order and respond to genuine threats. However, the power to impose restrictions doesn't automatically justify every detention or use of force.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which came into effect on 1 July 2024, provides safeguards governing arrests.

Section 43 establishes specific safeguards for the arrest of women. Subject to the circumstances specified in the law, a woman's submission to custody following oral intimation of arrest is presumed, and a police officer who is not a woman shouldn't touch her to make the arrest unless the circumstances otherwise require. The provision also generally prohibits the arrest of women between sunset and sunrise, subject to exceptional circumstances and the prescribed procedure.

Section 46 states that a person arrested shouldn't be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent escape. These provisions don't mean that every physical interaction during an arrest is unlawful. The circumstances and the applicable legal requirements matter, but neither does the authority to arrest give police personnel permission to inflict unnecessary force or treat a detainee without dignity.

When a woman alleges that she has been assaulted during a protest, the relevant questions include whether the force was necessary and proportionate, whether the detention followed the law and whether the complaint received a fair investigation.

The accountability gap

One of the most important questions in cases of alleged police brutality is what happens after the incident.

A complaint may lead to an internal inquiry, intervention by a human-rights commission or proceedings before a court. But the existence of an inquiry doesn't, by itself, establish that accountability has been achieved.

The public needs to know whether allegations were investigated fairly, whether relevant evidence was preserved and whether appropriate action followed when misconduct was established.

The Supreme Court's response to the recent allegations involving women journalists offers an opportunity to examine these questions. Its request for an explanation from a senior Delhi Police officer is an important development, but the outcome of the proceedings must be established before drawing conclusions about individual responsibility.

For ordinary women protesters, the same principle must apply.

A woman shouldn't need a press card, a political connection or a large social-media following for her complaint to be taken seriously. Equally, allegations against police personnel should be examined on evidence rather than political loyalties.

Independent investigations, accessible complaint mechanisms and transparent reporting of outcomes are essential to building public trust.

The real story is bigger than one protest

There is a tendency to judge police action based on the political identity of those on the streets. When protesters support a preferred cause, their treatment may attract sympathy. When they support an opposing cause, the same concerns can be dismissed.

That approach weakens accountability. The right to peaceful assembly doesn't depend on whether the government agrees with the protesters. Nor should allegations of police misconduct be judged according to which political organisation called the demonstration.

Women journalists need to be able to report without unlawful interference. Workers must be able to raise employment concerns. Students must be able to express grievances. Ordinary citizens must be able to participate in peaceful demonstrations within the law.

None of these rights provides immunity from lawful police action. Equally, none can be dismissed simply because a protest is politically inconvenient.

Ultimately, the question isn't whether women should be exempt from the rules governing public demonstrations. It's whether those rules are applied lawfully and consistently, and whether police personnel are held accountable when misconduct is established.

A democracy can't measure its commitment to women's safety only by the promises it makes outside protest sites. It must also measure that commitment by how women are treated when they enter them.

The voices in this debate must include not only prominent activists and journalists, but also the ordinary women who join demonstrations to demand change. Their experiences deserve to be heard, their allegations deserve fair investigation, and their rights deserve protection.