Delhi Police detained reporters despite press IDs at October 10 protests: what the evidence shows

Journalists covering the protests around Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 10 October 2026 were detained even after identifying themselves as members of the press, according to accounts from several news organisations and reporters. Some said police pushed or dragged them, seized phones and took them away in buses. These were not merely claims circulating in an Instagram reel: newsrooms confirmed the detention of their own staff, and Reuters subsequently interviewed affected journalists and reviewed reporting and footage.

The incidents raise a specific question about Delhi Police’s handling of the demonstrations: what justified restricting reporters who were documenting events rather than taking part in the protest? Police had reasons to plan for public disorder, but that does not answer why individual journalists displaying press cards were detained.

Reporters detained while covering the demonstration

Newslaundry reported that its journalists Ashwine Singh, Savyasachi Astha and Anmol Pritam, along with intern Anshu, were detained on 10 October and later released. According to the newsroom, police took Anmol’s and Anshu’s phones, pushed Ashwine and snatched his phone. The newsroom said the journalists identified themselves as media workers but were not allowed to continue reporting. It reported that a group including journalists and protesters was transported to Chhatrasal Stadium.

Scroll investigative reporter Ayush Tiwari was detained near ITO, according to his newsroom’s executive editor, despite displaying his press card and repeatedly saying he was a journalist. He was subsequently released. Other media outlets reported detentions involving their own journalists. On 11 October, three Indian Express Hindi journalists said they were detained near Chelmsford Road and released about 45 minutes later. Their experience shows that restrictions on identifiable media workers continued beyond the first day’s events.

In its 12 October account, Reuters reported that nearly three dozen journalists from several newsrooms were detained during the protest weekend. Reporters described being roughly handled and having phones taken away. That reporting supports the broader pattern of interference, although it does not independently prove each allegation about every officer or incident.

What the October 10 reel argues

In a reel published on 10 October, commentary on the account @akashbanerjee.in criticises Delhi Police for targeting journalists despite press identification. It discusses accounts of people being pulled away while saying they were journalists and cites a condemnation attributed to the DIGIPUB News India Foundation. The reel also suggests that police were retaliating against journalists for exposing earlier abuses. The detentions and interference are supported by separate reporting, but deliberate retaliation is an allegation about motive that has not been established by the available evidence. The reel’s list of affected reporters should not be taken as independent confirmation of every named person’s circumstances.

Police justification and its limits

Delhi Police had denied permission for the planned protest and cited concerns about public order. In a later submission to the Supreme Court, the police commissioner pointed to earlier clashes, concerns about violence and traffic disruption. Such risks can justify lawful, proportionate crowd-control measures. They do not automatically explain why a reporter displaying identification, standing apart from a demonstration or working at a separate location had to be detained.

Police have also alleged that some participants posed as journalists. That concern calls for checking a person’s circumstances rather than treating every reporter as a protester. The accounts from named newsrooms provide ways to establish employment and reporting assignments; an assertion about impersonation cannot by itself rebut those individual accounts. The available reporting does not establish a complete, person-by-person police explanation of the detentions.

Why this is a press-freedom issue

Article 19 of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, subject to lawful restrictions. Journalists have no unrestricted exemption from generally applicable law. But preventing them from observing and recording a public demonstration must have a real legal and factual basis. Seizing equipment or detaining an identifiable journalist without adequate individual grounds harms not just the reporter but the public’s ability to see how authorities exercise power.

Where journalists were detained simply for reporting or despite the absence of a sufficient individual reason, that treatment was unjust. The independent newsroom accounts and wider reporting make the interference credible and serious enough to demand specific answers: who ordered each detention, under what legal authority, why reporting equipment was taken and what review or remedy followed. Those questions remain distinct from whether any court has found particular officers legally liable.

Conclusion

The October 10 reel’s central warning is borne out in an important respect: identifiable journalists covering Delhi’s protest weekend were detained, and multiple reporters described physical mistreatment or loss of reporting equipment. The evidence does not establish the commentator’s proposed motive of revenge. Public safety can be a legitimate police objective, but it cannot serve as a blanket answer to documented interference with reporting. Delhi Police owes a specific justification for the treatment of these journalists, and unjustified obstruction of their work deserves accountability.