Delhi High Court: Refuses Stay on SC/ST Act Probe Against Journalists

• The Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim stay on the investigation into a criminal case against a woman journalist and others.
• The case involves allegations of casteist remarks made against ACP Vivek Bhagat during an October 3 protest.
• The FIR, registered on October 13, includes charges under the SC/ST Act and sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
• Justice Mini Pushkarna explicitly stated the court could not halt the ongoing probe.
• The journalist's legal team claims ACP Bhagat's case is a 'counterblast' to a sexual harassment complaint she filed against him.

Justice Pushkarna firmly rejected this plea for an interim stay, explicitly stating that the court could not issue such an order at this stage of the proceedings.

The Delhi High Court recently declined to issue an interim order halting the ongoing investigation into a criminal case filed against a woman journalist and others. The case, which involves allegations of casteist remarks made against Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat, stems from an incident during a protest held in the national capital on October 3. The Delhi Police initiated the probe following a complaint from ACP Bhagat, leading to the registration of an FIR on October 13 at the Parliament Street police station.

The First Information Report names the woman journalist, an individual identified as Gajendra Singh who is associated with a news portal, and an unidentified person. The charges levied against them fall under the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside Sections 221, 356(2), and 3(5) of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This combination of statutes underscores the serious nature of the allegations being investigated by law enforcement authorities.

During the proceedings before Justice Mini Pushkarna, Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing the journalist and another accused, specifically requested the court to restrain the police from taking further investigative steps. However, Justice Pushkarna firmly rejected this plea for an interim stay, explicitly stating that the court could not issue such an order at this stage of the proceedings. This ruling highlights the judiciary's general reluctance to impede ongoing criminal investigations without compelling reasons.

The primary petition before the Delhi High Court seeks the quashing of the FIR against the journalist. While the request for an immediate halt to the investigation was denied, the court did confirm that the main plea for quashing the FIR would be heard promptly after the upcoming Dussehra break, allowing the substantive legal arguments to be presented and considered in due course.

The legal challenge brought by the journalist includes a significant counter-allegation, asserting that the criminal case initiated by ACP Vivek Bhagat is not merely a complaint but a retaliatory measure. According to the journalist's legal team, the SC/ST Act case is a direct "counterblast" to a prior sexual harassment complaint that the woman journalist had filed against ACP Bhagat. This claim introduces a complex layer to the ongoing legal dispute, suggesting a deeper conflict between the parties involved.

This assertion implies that the current investigation, which the Delhi High Court has refused to stay, is part of a broader contentious interaction between the journalist and the ACP. The court's decision to proceed with the investigation, despite these counter-allegations, indicates a high threshold for judicial intervention in the initial stages of a police probe, emphasizing the need for a thorough factual determination before any such action is taken.

Lawyers advising clients facing criminal investigations, particularly under the SC/ST Act or involving new penal codes like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, should note the Delhi High Court's strong disinclination to grant interim stays on probes, even when counter-allegations are present. This signals a high threshold for judicial intervention at the early stages of an investigation.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench