17

Oct

Dissent Under Threat: Need for Police Accountability

image

Dr. M. Iqbal Siddiqui

New Delhi I Saturday I October 17, 2026

The events surrounding the protests in Delhi on 10 October 2026 raise questions that go far beyond crowd management. Journalists were reportedly detained while covering demonstrations, protesters were assaulted by men in civilian clothes, and allegations of mistreatment in custody emerged. The conduct of the police has consequently come under scrutiny. Together, these developments pose a fundamental question: can citizens exercise their democratic rights and scrutinise those in power without fear of intimidation or violence?
The protests, organised by the Cockroach Janta Party and supported by sections of civil society and opposition politics, demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls. The Election Commission and the government must respond to such allegations through transparent procedures. But the merits of a protest’s demands cannot determine whether its participants enjoy constitutional protection. The right to peaceful assembly and the freedom to report are not privileges granted at the government’s discretion.
Journalists Detained, the Public Kept in the Dark
Reports from the ground describe journalists being detained despite identifying themselves as members of the press. Reuters reported that nearly three dozen journalists were detained, while accounts published by Newslaundry and Alt News described rough handling, uncertainty over the legal basis for detention and difficulties in recovering equipment. Some reporters were reportedly taken far from the places where they had been working.
Journalists documenting public events perform an essential democratic function. They record what happens, question official accounts and preserve evidence that might otherwise remain inaccessible. Detaining reporters without clearly explaining the legal grounds, obstructing their work or interfering with their equipment deprives citizens of information needed to hold public authorities accountable.
The danger is especially serious when journalists become targets while recording the very actions that demand public scrutiny. The police cannot be the sole arbiters of what the public is permitted to see.
Equally disturbing are reports and video footage showing men in civilian clothes assaulting protesters, including women and young people, in central Delhi. Hindustan Times reported that men associated with right-wing organisations threatened journalists and attacked protesters in Connaught Place and near the MCD Civic Centre. In one incident near Palika Bazaar, a group identifying itself as Bajrang Dal reportedly threatened journalists covering the demonstration.
Four men accused of assaulting protesters were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Reports identified them as linked to the Hindu Raksha Dal. Their arrest and release on bail do not, by themselves, establish guilt or innocence. The larger questions remain unanswered: who were these men, what authority did they possess, and why were assaults reportedly taking place in the presence of uniformed police?
Eyewitness accounts and footage raise serious questions about police inaction and possible complicity. If officers permitted, facilitated or deliberately ignored unlawful violence, their conduct must be investigated alongside the assaults themselves. General assurances that order was maintained cannot substitute for specific answers.
No political or ideological affiliation should provide immunity from the law. Nor can unofficial groups be allowed to intimidate citizens or perform law-enforcement functions without legal authority.
Allegations of Abuse in Custody
The allegations extend beyond the streets. Detainees told The Indian Express that they had been beaten, kicked and mistreated after being taken into custody or to detention facilities. One reportedly suffered a fractured elbow, while lawyer Fidal Tom alleged that he was beaten after objecting to a man in civilian clothes assaulting detainees. Medical documentation was reportedly available in connection with injuries.
Delhi Police said it had received no formal complaints but would act if complaints were filed. That response cannot become a reason to avoid scrutiny when credible accounts and reported medical evidence warrant investigation. Medical records, detention registers, CCTV footage, transport logs and duty rosters must be examined, and detainees must be able to report abuse without fear of retaliation.
The allegations of sexual harassment made by three women journalists against Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October are particularly grave. The National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognisance and sought a detailed report from the Delhi Police Commissioner within two weeks. These allegations require impartial investigation and should not be treated as established findings before the evidence is examined.
On 15 October, the Supreme Court considered a proposal for a committee involving retired women judges and retired women police officers to examine allegations of sexual abuse against women journalists. It also directed that no coercive action be taken against a journalist facing a complaint from a police officer whom she had accused of sexual harassment. The proposed committee should not be described as formally constituted unless confirmed by a subsequent order.
Every complaint must be assessed on its evidence. But counter-complaints must not become instruments of intimidation that discourage journalists from exposing possible official misconduct.
The Supreme Court’s interventions underline the seriousness of the matter. On 15 October, it directed law-enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital material relating to the protests. It also directed Delhi Police to place on record prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita during the preceding two weeks, and issued notice on a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 172, concerning police powers to direct and remove people.
Preserving evidence is essential, but preservation must be followed by credible examination. Footage can establish who assaulted whom, which officers were present, whether they intervened and how detainees were treated. Evidence that disappears, is withheld or is selectively disclosed can defeat accountability before an investigation begins.
The Court’s scrutiny does not establish the truth of every allegation. It does, however, underline the need for serious judicial examination. Authorities must comply with its directions and explain the legal basis for restrictions and detentions. Maintaining public order is a legitimate state responsibility, not a licence to suppress dissent or evade accountability.
A related, though distinct, issue concerns the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India and its commissioners on a petition by Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders alleging large-scale voter deletions and irregularities. The petition seeks an independent audit, disclosure of records and safeguards against exclusion without notice. In a separate Delhi SIR matter, the Court advanced the hearing to 28 October over concerns about notices to electors and the use of Form 6 by voters whose names had been deleted.
These proceedings do not establish that the allegations are true. They nevertheless reinforce the principle that electoral-roll revision must be transparent, fair and accompanied by effective remedies against wrongful exclusion. Although separate from the protest-related cases, both controversies concern the accountability of public institutions and the protection of democratic rights.
Democracy demands answers, not assurances. Delhi Police must explain who the men in civilian clothes were, whether they had any authority, why officers allegedly failed to intervene, and on what grounds journalists were detained. It must also clarify whether equipment was seized, whether all recordings have been accounted for, and what action has followed allegations of custodial assault and harassment.
The Police Commissioner must ensure the preservation of CCTV footage, original recordings, deployment registers and detention records. Every credible allegation of assault, unlawful detention or intimidation must be investigated impartially, including the conduct of officers who witnessed violence or failed to act. Where wrongdoing is established, appropriate legal and departmental action must follow, regardless of rank, political connections or ideological affiliation. The Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission must pursue scrutiny within their respective mandates.
News organisations, journalists’ associations and civil-liberties groups also have a responsibility to maintain a verified record of detentions, assaults, complaints and official responses. Public attention must not fade once the immediate confrontation ends.
This is neither a demand for impunity for protesters nor an argument against legitimate police authority. It is a demand that the law apply equally to everyone. No political affiliation should shield anyone from accountability, no dissenting opinion should invite punishment outside the law, and no journalist should have to weigh personal safety against the duty to report.
A democracy is measured not by the freedom enjoyed by those who agree with the government, but by the protection it affords those who question it. When citizens are beaten, journalists are detained and the conduct of public authorities remains unexplained, the constitutional promise of liberty is placed at risk.
The question before Delhi—and every institution entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution—is simple: will the rule of law be enforced impartially, or will accountability depend on who protests, who reports and who wields power?
The country deserves answers, the victims deserve justice, and those responsible for upholding the Constitution must themselves be held to its standards.
 

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9910322682
  • mediamapnetwork@gmail.com
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed