NEET Protest: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Probe Into Alleged Attacks On Journalists At Jantar Mantar

The petition contends that the case is not about choosing between the government and the protesters, but concerns the constitutional protection available to journalists performing their professional duties during public demonstrations.

"This petition does not ask this Hon'ble Court to choose between the Government and the protesters, to certify the editorial fairness of any television channel, or to criminalise peaceful dissent," the petition states.

It adds: "It raises a narrower constitutional question: whether field journalists, camerapersons and media workers may be surrounded, sexually abused, chased, beaten, dispossessed of their equipment or threatened with death because a section of a crowd dislikes the perceived editorial position of their employer."

The plea draws a distinction between peaceful dissent protected under Article 19(1)(b) and criminal acts allegedly committed during protests.

"The Constitution protects criticism of the media, boycott of a channel, peaceful slogans and robust public disagreement. It does not protect assault, criminal intimidation, gendered abuse, snatching, wrongful restraint, rioting or destruction of recording equipment," it submits.

Referring to incidents reported between July 18 and July 23, the petitioner alleges that several journalists covering the demonstrations were assaulted, intimidated or subjected to gendered abuse. Among the incidents cited are the alleged assault on Times Now reporter Dev Kotak, attacks on Shafali Nigam and her cameraperson, the alleged chasing of Jyoti Mishra, the reported targeting of ABP News reporter Varun Bhasin, and allegations of sexual abuse and rape and death threats directed at a woman television reporter.

At the same time, the petition clarifies that these media reports are not being projected as conclusively established facts.

"The Petitioner does not plead these media accounts as finally proved facts. The immediate constitutional injury lies in the absence of a transparent and neutral mechanism for preserving primary electronic evidence, registering victim-specific complaints, identifying individual perpetrators and simultaneously examining allegations of unlawful force by police. The petition therefore seeks preservation and investigation, not a trial by newspaper," it states.

The petitioner also records that protest representatives had condemned attacks on journalists and appealed for peace, while some protesters allegedly assisted journalists during the clashes. It further notes that police have alleged stone-pelting and assaults on personnel, whereas protesters have accused the police of using excessive force.

According to the plea, the truth must be determined "incident-wise and person-wise from original evidence."

The petition urges the Supreme Court to direct the immediate preservation of CCTV footage, police videography, drone and body camera footage, wireless and control room records, deployment records, medical records and original video files voluntarily supplied by journalists and media organisations.

It also seeks a neutral investigation by officers unconnected with the crowd-control operation, protection for victims and witnesses, and a status report detailing the complaints received, FIRs registered, evidence preserved and investigative steps taken.

In addition, the petitioner has sought the formulation of a National Minimum Protocol for the Safety of Journalists and Media Personnel during Public Assemblies, describing the proposed framework as viewpoint-neutral and intended to safeguard journalists against both mob violence and unlawful State interference.

Relying on decisions including S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of West Bengal, Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, and In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties, the petition contends that the Supreme Court has consistently held that freedom of expression cannot be surrendered to threats of violence.

The plea further discloses that related petitions concerning alleged police action against protesters are already pending before the Delhi High Court and that two petitions concerning excessive police force have been listed before the Supreme Court on July 27, 2026. It seeks to be tagged with or treated as a companion to those proceedings while stressing that its focus remains on neutral accountability, preservation of evidence and protection of journalists covering public protests.