National

Delhi High Court Declines Interim Stay on Probe Against Journalists Facing SC/ST Act Charges, Issues Notice to Police

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 27 October 2026 · 5 min read
Delhi High Court Declines Interim Stay on Probe Against Journalists Facing SC/ST Act Charges, Issues Notice to Police

The Delhi High Court has declined to halt an ongoing police investigation against two independent journalists accused of making casteist slurs against a senior police officer during a protest in central Delhi. A single-judge bench issued formal notice to the Delhi Police and the complainant officer on petitions seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR), but made it clear that the statutory probe would not be stalled pending a formal status report.

The dispute stems from an October 3 demonstration where independent journalist Rosy and her colleague were reporting on the detention of a protest activist. The journalist previously submitted a complaint alleging inappropriate physical conduct and assault by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat. Subsequently, ACP Bhagat filed a criminal complaint against the journalists, leading to an FIR invoking the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alongside provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The journalists approached the High Court to quash the criminal case, alleging retaliatory action.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Criminal Law & Constitutional Law

Sub-topic: Quashing of FIRs / Interim Protection / Atrocities Against SC/ST Framework

Core Legal Issue

The central legal question before the High Court is whether an ongoing criminal investigation under special penal statutes, specifically the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, should be stayed at the threshold prior to the State placing its factual findings and status report before the court.

A related procedural issue is whether cross-allegations of official misconduct and malice raised by an accused can justify judicial interdiction of police investigative powers before an initial inquiry into the facts is completed.

What Did the Court / Authority Decide?

Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to pass an ad-interim order restraining the Delhi Police from continuing their investigation or granting pre-emptive protection against coercive measures.

The court held that it would not curtail statutory police powers without first perusing the formal reply and status report of the investigating agency. Clarifying that it was not rejecting the substantive prayers on merits, the High Court issued notice returnable in mid-November, leaving the investigation uninterrupted while the State files its counter-affidavit.

Key Legal Points

  • High Threshold for Halting Criminal Investigations: Constitutional courts remain reluctant to stay police investigations at the preliminary notice stage, particularly in matters involving special penal enactments like the SC/ST Act, without reviewing a verified status report from the police.

  • Separation of Fact-Gathering and Judicial Scrutiny: Judicial intervention in a criminal probe under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requires an examination of whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offense on the face of the record, rather than resolving disputed questions of fact in interim proceedings.

  • Dual-Track Complaints: The existence of a prior or parallel complaint against an investigating officer does not automatically invalidate an FIR or operate as an absolute legal bar to an independent inquiry into counter-allegations.

Relevant Law

  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Provisions pertaining to intentional insult, intimidation, and public humiliation of members of Scheduled Castes by non-members in public view.

  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):

    • Section 221 (obstructing a public servant in discharge of public functions).

    • Section 356(2) (criminal defamation).

    • Section 3(5) (joint criminal liability and common intention).

  • High Court’s Inherent Powers: Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) governing the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Applicant

Counsel for the journalists contended that the FIR was registered with oblique motives and lacked bona fide legal standing. They argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated solely as an act of retaliation and intimidation to pressurize the journalist into withdrawing her prior sexual harassment complaint against the officer. Counsel urged that allowing the investigation to proceed creates an imminent threat of custodial harassment, warranting immediate interim protection and a halt to coercive steps.

Respondent / State

The complainant police officer maintained that the journalists obstructed an active officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties during a public gathering, accompanied by defamatory slurs and targeted caste-based abuse in full public view. From the perspective of the State, the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offenses under special legislation, mandating an unimpeded investigation under statutory criminal procedure.

Why Does It Matter?

This development highlights the strict procedural discipline followed by constitutional courts when confronted with interim pleas to stay criminal investigations. Even where petitioners raise serious allegations of retaliatory prosecution or misuse of statutory provisions against members of the press, high courts routinely decline to pass blanket injunctions against law enforcement without examining the State's verified records.

The ruling reinforces the principle that extraordinary powers to quash or stay criminal proceedings cannot be used as an immediate substitute for statutory investigation, ensuring that parallel counter-complaints undergo formal police inquiry before judicial evaluation on merits.

Legal Takeaway

The High Court’s refusal to stay the probe confirms that preliminary claims of vendetta or retaliatory FIRs do not automatically entitle an accused to an interim freeze on police action. Investigative agencies are generally allowed to collect basic evidentiary material and submit a formal status report before the court evaluates whether a prosecution constitutes an abuse of process.

Sources

Primary Source:

Proceedings and Interim Order of the High Court of Delhi in the quashing petitions concerning FIR registered at New Delhi District (Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna, October 27, 2026).

Additional Sources:

  • Case records pertaining to FIR invoking Sections 221, 356(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

  • Reports by the Press Trust of India (PTI) and national legal dispatches regarding the Delhi High Court proceedings.

Related reporting