The Delhi High Court declined on Tuesday to issue an interim stay on an active criminal investigation against a female journalist accused of making casteist slurs against an Assistant Commissioner of Police during a demonstration near Jantar Mantar. Justice Mini Pushkarna determined that the matter requires judicial consideration without granting premature relief, scheduling the case for comprehensive arguments.
While refusing an immediate halt to law enforcement inquiries, the court issued formal notices to the Delhi Police and complainant Vivek Bhagat, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) posted at the Connaught Place sub-division. As reported in The Hindu's court coverage, the respondents must submit verified responses prior to the scheduled hearing date on November 16.
Judicial Observations and Cross-Complaints
Addressing the request for an interim suspension of the ongoing probe, Justice Pushkarna clarified the bench's procedural stance during the hearing. "I am not rejecting any prayer as of now. I am only issuing notice to them. The matter needs consideration; list for final hearing on November 16," the judge remarked while considering the journalist's quashing petition.
The underlying controversy stems from an incident earlier this month during a public demonstration in central Delhi. ACP Bhagat filed a complaint alleging that the independent scribe and her colleagues subjected him to public humiliation, defamation, and targeted casteist abuse. The police subsequently registered a First Information Report (FIR) invoking key clauses of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alongside provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to The Hindu's legal analysis, the applied BNS provisions include Section 221 (obstructing a public servant in discharge of public functions), Section 356(2) (defamation), and Section 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
In defense, legal counsel representing the journalist contended that the police officer's allegations were retaliatory. Prior to the registration of the atrocities FIR, the woman journalist lodged an official sexual assault complaint against ACP Bhagat. That complaint remains under active inquiry by the Delhi Police Crime Branch. Her legal team maintained before the bench that the cross-complaint served primarily to exert pressure and discourage her from pursuing the initial allegations.
The High Court issued an identical procedural order concerning a related plea filed by a male colleague of the journalist, who faces similar charges under the joint FIR.
Photographic Documentation
Atrocities — verified documentary press visual.
Case Overview and Procedural Milestones
With the refusal to halt ongoing proceedings, Delhi Police investigators may legally proceed with evidence collection. Further directions will depend on the responses filed before the bench ahead of the mid-November proceedings documented by The Hindu's national desk.
| Case Element | Details and Statutory Framing |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Assistant Commissioner of Police Vivek Bhagat (Connaught Place sub-division) |
| Petitioner | Independent female journalist (and co-accused male colleague) |
| Statutory Provisions | SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; BNS §§ 221, 356(2), 3(5) |
| Counter-Investigation | Sexual assault complaint against ACP investigated by Delhi Police Crime Branch |
| Current Legal Status | Investigation ongoing; interim stay declined by High Court |
| Upcoming Milestone | Filing of state and complainant replies due before November 16 hearing |
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Delhi High Court rule in this petition?
Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to pass an interim order staying the investigation against the independent journalist. Instead, the bench issued formal notices to the Delhi Police and the complainant, directing them to place their replies on record before November 16.
What specific charges are named in the police FIR?
The FIR registered on ACP Vivek Bhagat's complaint invokes relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 221 (obstructing public duty), 356(2) (defamation), and 3(5) (common intention).
What counter-complaint is currently under investigation?
The woman journalist previously lodged a formal sexual assault complaint against ACP Vivek Bhagat. That separate inquiry is being handled by the Delhi Police Crime Branch, with her legal team arguing the subsequent SC/ST Act case was filed to intimidate her.
