A Delhi court on November 3, 2026, sought an action-taken report from the Delhi Police on a complaint filed by a woman journalist seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat over allegations of sexual assault.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Kautuk Bhardwaj, presiding over the Patiala House Courts, directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Parliament Street Police Station to submit a point-wise report explaining whether the complainant had approached the police, what action had been taken on her complaint and whether any cognizable offence was disclosed against the accused officer.
Court Seeks Clarification on FIR Registration
The court specifically directed the police to clarify whether an FIR had been registered on the journalist's complaint and, if so, provide the present status of the investigation. If the police concluded that no cognizable offence was made out, they must also clarify whether the complainant had been informed about that decision.
The directions were issued while hearing a complaint filed by the woman journalist, identified as Rosy, who alleged that the police had failed to register an FIR despite her complaint concerning the incident.
Directions to Preserve CCTV and Body-Camera Footage
During the hearing, the complainant's counsel informed the court that the alleged incident had been captured by CCTV cameras installed near the place of occurrence. The incident reportedly took place on October 3, 2026, while the journalist was covering a protest.
Considering the urgency of preserving potentially relevant evidence, the court directed the concerned SHO to take all necessary steps within three days of receiving the order to preserve CCTV footage relating to the place of occurrence. The direction also extends to other relevant digital evidence, including police body-camera footage.
The court further directed the SHO to submit a compliance report concerning the preservation of the footage within one week.
Background of the Allegations
The journalist has alleged that ACP Vivek Bhagat sexually assaulted and manhandled her while she was covering a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar near Jantar Mantar on October 3, 2026.
According to her allegations, she was recording the detention of a protester when the police officer allegedly touched her inappropriately and pushed her after she questioned the absence of women police personnel during the detention.
Following the alleged incident, she approached Parliament Street Police Station with a complaint. However, according to the reports before the court, no FIR had been registered on her complaint at the time of the November 3 proceedings.
Related FIR Against the Journalist
In a related development, ACP Vivek Bhagat also lodged a complaint against the journalist, alleging public humiliation, casteist remarks and obstruction of his official duties during the protest. An FIR was subsequently registered against the journalist and others under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The journalist challenged the FIR before the Delhi High Court and sought interim protection and a stay on the investigation. On October 27, 2026, the Delhi High Court declined to stay the investigation at that stage, while issuing notice and listing the matter for further hearing.
The Supreme Court had separately granted the journalist interim protection against coercive action in the proceedings against her.
Next Hearing on December 1
The Delhi court has listed the matter for December 1, 2026, for submission of the action-taken report by the police.
The latest directions focus on police accountability, examination of the complaint and preservation of potentially material electronic evidence. The court has not determined the merits of the sexual assault allegations, and the allegations against the ACP remain unproven.
Legal Significance: The proceedings highlight the importance of police responsiveness to complaints alleging cognizable offences and the timely preservation of electronic evidence, including CCTV recordings and body-camera footage, which may be relevant during criminal investigations.