Journalist alleging harassment by Delhi Police ACP had to endure 25-point questionnaire by Crime Branch

Complainant's lawyer alleges questions focused on her personal and professional background and sought to establish the officer’s credibility; no FIR registered

Updated - October 09, 2026 06:49 am IST - NEW DELHI

Injured Delhi ACP Vivek Bhagat, who was allegedly attacked by a violent mob at the Jantar Mantar area while on duty, speaks to the media, in New Delhi on Thursday, October 8, 2026 | Photo Credit: ANI

The woman journalist who accused Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat of sexual harassment and manhandling during a protest in New Delhi was summoned by the Crime Branch for further questioning on Thursday (October 8, 2026), nearly a week after she lodged a complaint. No FIR has been registered in connection with the allegations so far.

The issue has also caught the attention of the NHRC. The Commission took suo motu cognisance on Thursday of a news report stating that three women journalists were allegedly sexually harassed by city police personnel at Jantar Mantar on October 3, and issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner seeking a detailed report within two weeks.

The journalist was questioned at the Crime Branch office in Prashant Vihar, Delhi. Her lawyer, an advocate with the Supreme Court, alleged that the manner of questioning made the complainant feel as though she was being treated as an accused rather than a victim.

“The way the interrogation happened, it was like she was the accused. They started profiling the victim,” the journalist’s lawyer said.

The survivor was given a 25-point questionnaire relating to the incident. The questions included whether she knew Mr. Bhagat before the incident, whether she had encountered him previously, whether he was attempting to detain other people at the time and other aspects of the officer’s conduct during the protest.

The journalist’s lawyer alleged that investigators also asked questions about the journalist’s family and professional background, including how long she had been working with the media organisation she was associated with.

“Their focus was more on her background, including her family profile and work profile. The questions looked like they were trying to establish the credibility of the officer,” he said, adding that such detailed questionnaires were generally used while questioning accused persons and not complainants.

The Crime Branch also sought a video recording that the journalist and her legal team had in their possession. However, the complainant informed the investigators that they would submit the footage after an FIR was registered.

The legal team has also asked the police to secure CCTV footage covering a 500-metre radius around the alleged incident site, near a Mother Dairy booth on Janpath Lane. It has also requested that footage from body-worn cameras of all police personnel deployed within the same radius be preserved.

The lawyer also questioned why the complaint was being investigated at the Crime Branch office in Prashant Vihar when it was initially submitted at the Parliament Street police station. He also questioned why counselling had not been provided to the complainant.

The allegations date back to October 3, when the journalist was covering a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. She alleged that Mr. Bhagat sexually harassed and shoved her while she was recording the detention of All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora.

The Delhi Police had said on October 4 that it had received three complaints concerning the allegations and that they had been transferred to the Crime Branch for inquiry.

The survivor was later detained by the police twice – on October 4 during the protest against the SIR and CEC Gyanesh and later on October 5 for staging a protest at the Parliament Street police station demanding registration of a case against the officer. An FIR was registered against her and 16 other protestors under a series of sections including assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty, vandalism, and illegal gathering among others.

Published - October 08, 2026 10:44 pm IST

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.