Delhi ACP Facing Sexual Harassment Allegations Accuses Journalist of Casteist Remarks; FIR Filed

Delhi ACP Accuses Journalist of Caste-Based Abuse, Intimidation and Defamation; FIR Registered

Delhi Police has registered an FIR against an independent journalist and others following a complaint by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat, who alleged caste-based insults, intimidation, obstruction of official duty and defamation during a protest in the national capital on October 3.

According to the FIR lodged at Parliament Street police station, Bhagat, posted in the Connaught Place subdivision of New Delhi district, was assigned law-and-order duty during a demonstration against the Election Commission of India near Buta Singh Roundabout, close to Jantar Mantar.

In his complaint, the ACP alleged that an independent journalist made derogatory remarks about his caste and questioned how he had been appointed to the post. Bhagat stated that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and that he and his operator, Constable Ravi Dahiya, heard the alleged remarks in public.

The complaint specifically refers to comments allegedly targeting Bhagat’s Megh/Mehgwal caste identity and his nameplate. According to the ACP, he initially chose to ignore the remarks and continued with his official responsibilities.

ACP Alleges Obstruction During Protest Duty

Bhagat further alleged that around 3 pm, while he was facilitating the movement of a bus carrying detained protesters, the journalist accused him of sexually assaulting her.

The FIR claims that the journalist, along with colleagues and associates, repeatedly confronted the ACP during the incident, disrupting the performance of his official duties.

According to the complaint, the confrontation continued later in the day. At around 6.15 pm, the journalist, Gajender Singh and others allegedly staged a protest outside Parliament Street police station.

Bhagat alleged that the group raised slogans against him and publicly referred to him as a “sexual predator” and a potential rapist. These claims form part of the ACP’s complaint and have not been established in court.

Social Media Posts Allegedly Tarnished ACP’s Image

The ACP also alleged that posts and reels containing accusations against him were subsequently circulated on X and Instagram.

According to the FIR, the content was shared by the journalist, identified as Rosy in the complaint, and others, including Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das and Ratna Singh.

Bhagat claimed that the online posts portrayed him as a sexual predator, causing him mental distress and damaging his professional and personal reputation.

He requested legal action under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

FIR Invokes BNS and SC/ST Atrocities Act

The FIR has been registered under Sections 221, 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These provisions concern obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of public functions, defamation and acts committed with common intention, respectively.

It also invokes Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which address specified offences involving members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The FIR states that a prima facie case was found under the cited provisions. Further investigation was assigned to ACP Ajay Sharma of Parliament Street police station on the directions of senior officers.

Journalist’s Sexual Assault Complaint Under Separate Enquiry

The case follows a separate complaint by the journalist, who accused ACP Vivek Bhagat of sexual assault. According to PTI, her complaint was transferred to the Delhi Police Crime Branch and was under enquiry.

The two complaints involve allegations by both sides, and the claims remain subject to investigation. While the FIR against the journalist and others concerns the ACP’s allegations of caste-based abuse, obstruction and defamation, the sexual assault accusation is being examined separately.

Further investigation into the ACP’s complaint was underway.