Rejoinder: Delhi Police cannot absolve itself of crimes it stands accused of

On 10 August, The Caravan published a report titled, “Delhi Police beat and sexually assaulted us in Bhajanpura station: Riots complainant and daughter,” by the journalists Prabhjit Singh and Shahid Tantray. They reported on accusations by women residents of Subhash Mohalla, in northeast Delhi’s North Ghonda neighbourhood, that police officials had beaten and sexually assaulted them inside the premises of Bhajanpura police station on the night of 8 August. The women, Shaheen Khan, Shanno, and the latter’s 17-year-old daughter accused the police of slapping, hitting and manhandling them, and of touching Shanno and the teenager on their chests. The report also noted that the Delhi Police had denied these allegations. The women had visited the station to seek the registration of a first-information report into an incident from two days earlier, when Hindu locals, who were celebrating the stone-laying ceremony at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, tied saffron flags to the gate leading into the Muslim neighbourhood.

The day after the report on this incident was published, on 11 August, three journalists working with The Caravan—Singh, Tantray and a woman journalist—returned to the neighbourhood for follow-up reporting. That afternoon, as they were taking photos of saffron flags tied in a Hindu locality of Subhash Mohalla, a mob of locals surrounded and assaulted them. One among the mob said he was a “general secretary” of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Under attack for around an hour and a half, the journalists were beaten, subjected to communal slurs, and threatened with murder. During her attempt to escape the attack, the woman journalist was sexually harassed by a man who exposed himself to her. Finally, the police intervened and the journalists were taken to Bhajanpura police station, where they filed detailed complaints about the attack. The police did not register an FIR against these complaints. The next day, The Caravan published a report about the attack and sexual harassment faced by its staffers.

Later that night, the Delhi Police published a rejoinder to the 10 August report, about the accusations of sexual assault raised by the women residents of Subhash Mohalla, on Twitter. In it, the Delhi Police repeated its denial of any violence or sexual assault upon the women, and claimed that the women had left the station “after a lot of persuasion.” In the subject line its response the Delhi Police mentioned only the 10 August report. However, after giving a bare-bones denial that effectively repeated what had already been carried in The Caravan’s report, the Delhi Police proceeded to respond to the 11 August report about the assault on the journalists. In it, the police falsely accused the journalists of taking pictures of the locals “without consent” and suggested that by doing so, they “may provoke those present and create Law and Order problems including communal problems.”

The Delhi Police’s tweet with the rejoinder to the first story is embedded below, followed by Singh and Tantray’s response to it.

At the outset, it is crucial to understand two things that Delhi Police has attempted to accomplish, but cannot, with this response. Firstly, the Delhi Police has sought to absolve itself of grave allegations of sexual assault on a woman and a teenager without conducting any formal investigation. It is a fundamental principle of justice that an individual cannot be the judge of her own cause. Yet, the Delhi Police has tried to do precisely that. In this attempt, it has merely repeated a denial of the crimes it stands accused of—a denial that The Caravan had already reported—and it has done so without offering any substantive basis for this claim.

Secondly, through this unsubstantiated denial of the sexual-assault allegations, the Delhi Police has sought to shift the narrative about the violence inflicted on The Caravan’s journalists the next day. The rejoinder offers no explanation for why it addresses the attack on the journalists. Yet, the Delhi Police has used it as a platform to effectively accuse us and our colleague of fomenting communal tensions in the area by falsely claiming that we took photos without the consent of the locals. This is false—we took the consent of the locals for our photos and video interviews with them, we did not take photos of their homes, and the law imposes no restrictions on taking photos of a public space without consulting the nearby residents.

In its response to the 10 August report, the police claimed that the allegations by the women of Subhash Mohalla are “utterly false and motivated.” It is unclear what would motivate the women to make such allegations. Shanno had told us that the police had torn her kurta during the attack—a tear that we could see during our interview. It is also unclear if the police is suggesting that Shanno had torn her own kurta for the purpose of making this allegation. The police response further claimed, “No such incident had happened in Police Station nor was any injury reported.” Once again, it is not clear whom the police expected these to be “reported” to, or whether the police expected that the women who accused officials of beating and sexually assaulting them would then go on to report these crimes to the same personnel.

Importantly, the police has provided little basis for its claims. The rejoinder stated the woman official who was present in the station “has denied any such incident of manhandling by police staff of PS Bhajanpura.” But as The Caravan reported, the 17-year-old had told us that “a lady official came from behind and she held up my hand and repeatedly beat me on the head.” Given that the woman police official faces grave allegations of beating a teenager herself, her denial of accusations of manhandling can hardly be taken at face value. It bears repeating that the police cannot adjudicate their own guilt without a formal investigation.

The rejoinder goes on to claim that shopkeepers outside the station “have also denied any manhandling of the complainant and other ladies.” But considering the allegations against the police, of sexual assault of a woman and her teenage daughter, it is not acceptable for the police to issue blanket denials based on informal conversations with shopkeepers. In accordance with proper criminal procedure, the Delhi Police must register an FIR into the allegations, produce Shanno and her daughter before a magistrate to record their statements without police presence, and then record the statements of any other witnesses, such as the nearby shopkeepers. Indian criminal procedure does not grant the Delhi Police with a discretion to conduct informal investigations into allegations of cognisable offences to determine their veracity.

This is a well-known principle of law that the police must mandatorily register FIRs in case a complaint discloses a cognisable offence, and that there is no need for a preliminary enquiry before the same. This gains relevance in the context of the FIR that the women of Subhash Mohalla had sought to register. They had filed a complaint that accused Hindus from the neighbourhood of creating a tense atmosphere by raising communal slogans outside the gate to the Muslim area of the neighbourhood. This clearly makes out the offence of promoting religious enmity under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which is a cognisable offence. Therefore, it is clear that the police ought to have registered an FIR into the complaint.

It is also pertinent to note that in second paragraph of its rejoinder, in which the Delhi Police refers to the women’s complaint, it has omitted the accusations of raising communal slogans. Yet, it later claimed that “the neighbours of the complainant have also denied any sort of instigation on part of any community owing to the Ram Temple foundation ceremony.” It is unclear whom the police consulted, but given that the group of women who visited the station were each others’ neighbours, there were clearly several neighbours who believed that a group of locals had raised communal slogans.

While the Delhi Police has failed to substantiate its claims that the women’s allegations were false, The Caravan is releasing a short video of the testimonies of Khan, Shanno and her daughter, in which they narrate their accounts of the events at the station. In the case of the daughter’s testimony, only the audio of the interview is being released, in order to protect her identity. In these testimonies, the women accuse the police officials of violence and sexual assault, as recorded in The Caravan’s report. “We were beaten and sexually assaulted,” Shanno said in her testimony. “Humaari beti ki izzat pe bhi humla kara unhone”—They sexually assaulted my daughter as well. Similarly, Khan said, “They slapped Shanno hard and raised their hands against her daughter as well.” She continued, “Bahut galat-galat jaga haath maara gandi tareeke se”—They touched her inappropriately in a reprehensible manner.

In a rejoinder about the allegations of sexual assault by the women residents of Subhash Mohalla, the Delhi Police oddly also addressed the assault on The Caravan’s journalists. Its observations about the attack are riddled with claims that are false and do not hold scrutiny. The police’s response on the assault on journalists indicates an attempt to shift the narrative about the incident from one in which the blame rests with the assailants, to one which effectively accuses us of creating “communal problems.”

The police wrote that the journalists “were taking pictures which led to heated exchange of words between media persons and local people.” It is misleading, to say the least, to characterise the relentless assault and sexual harassment of The Caravan’s journalists as a “heated exchange of words.” The woman journalist was sexually harassed by a man who exposed himself to her, and then beaten by a mob as she escaped from the man. Meanwhile, Tantray was subjected to an onslaught of attacks from a mob of fifty to one hundred people who had surrounded him. He was threatened with murder, strangled with the strap of his own camera and subjected to continuous communal abuse. The only gates to exit the area had been shut and the journalist were effectively held captive by the mob.

The police then falsely claims to have “acted swiftly and brought media persons to police station.” Two police officials arrived at the scene around an hour after the journalists were surrounded by the mob. They were unable to rescue the journalists from the mob, and it took another thirty minutes before more police officials arrived to be able to intervene and take the journalists to the police station. It is unclear by what metric this amounts to swift action.

The next line of the police response raises particularly grave concerns. The Delhi Police wrote, “Taking pictures without consent may provoke those prevent and create Law and Order problems including communal problems.” First and foremost, it is blatantly false to suggest that the journalists took photos of any individual without their consent. They interviewed Hindu residents of the area after asking if they would be willing to speak on camera. The mob assembled and turned aggressive to the journalists for taking photos of the public lane outside the houses, where saffron flags had been tied. There is no legal prohibition on taking photos of a public space and it is irresponsible of the police to suggest that doing so caused communal tensions. In fact, while reporting in an area from where complaints have arisen of communal tension, which included the tying of saffron flags have arisen, it is the duty and responsibility of any journalist to document the presence of such flags.

The police’s characterisation of the assault as the fault of the journalists is not only a grave attack on the freedom of press enshrined in the Constitution, it is also an indictment of the police’s approach to the incident. It is the responsibility of journalists to report on important issues such as communal tensions, and it is unacceptable for the police to blame journalists for carrying out this work, instead of ensuring their protection. This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that the three journalists were conducting follow-up reporting on accusations against police officials of beating and sexually assaulting women inside the Bhajanpura police station.

The Delhi Police stated that it is doing its work in a “professional, free and impartial manner.” However, the statements of the police in the same rejoinder indicate the falsehoods of this claim. It is difficult to see how the police can claim to be acting in an impartial manner if, instead of registering a first-information report on the journalists’ complaints, it suggests that the journalists were responsible for the attack upon them simply for taking photographs of a public space.

The police has stated that a lady of the locality has filed a complaint against the journalists, and that “appropriate legal action will be taken on conclusion of the enquiry.” This is also the reason that it cited to the journalists for not registering FIRs against their complaints. In failing to do so, the Delhi Police has once again failed in its obligation to register FIRs in complaints disclosing cognisable offences, as described in the journalists’ complaints. Inaction by the Delhi Police in these complaints has done considerable harm to the fundamental right of free speech of journalists guaranteed in the Constitution, and to the credibility of the police as an institution willing to defend this freedom.