Supreme Court Issues Notice on Journalist's Application Seeking FIR Over Alleged Incident During Court March

Notice issued, not a finding of wrongdoing

The Supreme Court has issued notice on an application by a journalist seeking criminal and protective directions following an incident she says occurred at the Court complex during a political march on October 12, 2026. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned the application before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on October 27. The Bench ordered notice to the respondents. Issuance of notice is a procedural step inviting responses; it is not a finding that any alleged assault occurred.

The application has been placed in an existing proceeding concerning political demonstrations within the Supreme Court premises. The underlying petition, identified as Digant Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1360 of 2026, provides the procedural setting for the journalist's request. The Court has not, on the reported hearing, granted the substantive reliefs sought in the application.

What the applicant alleges

The applicant states that she was working as a journalist during the October 12 gathering when she was pushed in a crowded area near the Court gate. She attributes the push to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. She says she was approximately eleven weeks pregnant at the time and that she fell, injuring herself and damaging equipment. These assertions are recorded as the applicant's account and have not been adjudicated.

According to her application, she later experienced abdominal discomfort and received medical attention at a hospital. She also alleges that comments made after the incident caused further distress and online hostility. The account of the alleged sequence, the identity of any person responsible, and the medical consequences remain matters requiring evidence and response from the parties concerned.

The applicant says she had approached the police seeking an FIR and that no FIR had been registered by the time of the application. Her proposed offences include provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with alleged assault, hurt and related conduct. Mention of those sections in the application does not establish that their ingredients have been satisfied.

Reliefs sought from the Court

The journalist requests directions for registration of an FIR, preservation of CCTV footage and entry records, protection from intimidation, compensation, and other appropriate proceedings. She also seeks preservation of video recordings made by media personnel who were present. The preservation request is important because electronic records may assist in establishing what occurred without relying solely on conflicting personal accounts.

She has also requested an apology and consideration of contempt action. These are prayers made by a litigant, not operative directions issued by the Court. The respondents are entitled to contest both the factual allegations and the legal basis for the remedies sought. A criminal investigation, if directed through a lawful process, would be distinct from a final judicial determination of guilt.

Procedural significance and next step

The case raises a practical question about how alleged incidents at a sensitive court entrance should be examined while preserving the rights of journalists, political participants and persons accused of wrongdoing. It also illustrates the difference between a complaint seeking police action and a judicial order requiring that action. The present stage is one of notice and response.

The next material development will be the respondents' replies and any further directions the Bench considers necessary. Until then, the reported order establishes only that the application has been brought before the Supreme Court and that the respondents have been called upon to answer it.

Case: Digant Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1360 of 2026. Appearance reported: Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned the application.