The Supreme Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking preventive and institutional directions for the protection of women police personnel deployed for public-order duties, a concern that came to the fore during the recent protests across Delhi.

Recently, the Court had heard several pleas addressing alleged non-compliance with its orders concerning the restriction of metro services, internet suspensions, and widespread detentions during recent protests, and subsequently issued notices in all related matters.

The PIL sought a neutral and evidence-based framework for all the States/Union Territories of India dealing with violence committed against female police personnel, including violence by protesters, sexual harassment, assault upon public servants and circulation of digitally manipulated or AI- generated material.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Issue notice, returnable on 03.11.2026. Tag with W.P.(C) No.1333/2026."


Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appeared for the Petitioner

A Writ Petition (PIL) was instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Ashish Gopal Garg, for preventive and institutional directions to protect women police personnel deployed in various security and police forces for public-order duties, which recently came to the limelight in the recent protest across Delhi.

The Plea, filed by AOR Shweta Garg, submitted, "That the episode demonstrates a new and serious danger. A synthetic clip presented as CCTV footage can be accepted by large numbers of people before any court, investigating agency or forensic laboratory has had an opportunity to examine its provenance. It causes immediate and possibly irreparable harm to the reputation of the person depicted; it may inflame public sentiment and expose that person, and police personnel generally, to retaliatory violence; and, equally, it may be used to discredit a genuine complaint by suggesting that all such footage is fabricated. Each of these harms can be prevented only if original material is preserved and authenticated by a reliable forensic process at the earliest stage."

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for (i) the framing of a protocol for the protection of women police personnel deployed for public-order duties and for the management of protests across the States/Union Territories of India; (ii) the preservation and forensic authentication of protest-related electronic evidence, including synthetic or AI-generated material; and (iii) the fair, independent and evidence-based examination of allegations of misconduct by police personnel and of violence against police personnel.

The Petitioner stated that women police personnel occupied a particularly vulnerable position in crowd-control operations, being exposed to risks with a specific gender dimension such as unwanted physical contact, sexual harassment, attempts to grab uniforms and humiliating conduct. It was submitted that such conduct in an open public space did not diminish the State’s obligation, as employer, to protect its women employees, and that a deliberate assault on a woman police officer on duty had a dual legal character, attracting Sections 74, 75 or 79 BNS as well as Sections 121, 132 or 221 BNS. It was, however, clarified that not every physical interaction between a protester and a woman police officer was an offence.

"These events show that women police personnel are being repeatedly deployed in crowded and volatile conditions where they face risks with a specilic gender dimension; that allegations now run in both directions; and that manipulated digital material can be manufactured and circulated as "evidence" before any investigating agency or court can examine it. There is, at present, no published protocol in the array State/Union Territories that deals together with the safety of women security forces and police personnel at protest deployments, the reporting and redressal of sexual harassment suffered by them in the field, the independent examination of complaints against police  personnel, and the preservation and authentication of protest-related electronic evidence", the plea said 

The Petitioner further raised the larger issue whether police and paramilitary personnel, both women and men, had no fundamental right while on duty during protests, and submitted that a mob could not be permitted to outrage the modesty of women under the guise of peaceful protest.

It was submitted that a standard protocol be adopted for preservation of CCTV, body-worn-camera, drone and control-room recordings, recording of hash values, documented chain of custody, preservation of original URLs and metadata, and forensic examination through the Forensic Science Laboratory or an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000.

It was submitted that the answer to manipulated material was not censorship of criticism, that the right to criticise public officials, including through satire and dissent, must remain protected, and that what required attention was the deliberate creation and dissemination of fabricated material represented as authentic evidence.

It was further submitted that prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS were a material circumstance and the police were entitled and required to enforce lawful orders, but that enforcement must remain necessary and proportionate and must respect the proviso to Section 43(1) BNSS.

It proposed a comprehensive Women Police Personnel Protection and Protest Management Protocol providing, inter alia, for adequate deployment of trained women personnel; safe positioning, rotation and relief; visible name or identification numbers on uniforms; on-site medical assistance; immediate reporting and recording by a woman officer with access to the Internal Committee; videography and body-worn cameras; independent examination of complaints against police within a fixed time; preservation, hashing and forensic authentication of disputed digital material; published arrangements for identification of media personnel; and periodic review.

"That it has been reported that the Delhi Police were examining several mobile-phone videos in which police personnel, including women officers and constables, were allegedly assaulted during the protests of 06.10.2026 and 07.10.2026. In order to identify those involved and to establish the sequence of events, an FIR under the provisions of the BNS relating to assault on and obstruction of public servants was likely. Link of videos along with screenshots, purporting to show the confrontations, including physical assault on women police personnel, which have circulated widely on social media", it was stated.

The Petitioner prayed for the following:

(a) guidelines for protection of police and paramilitary personnel, both women and men, from abusive language, physical assault, pressure tactics, intimidation and molestation during protests;

(b) guidelines for protection of the dignity of women police and paramilitary personnel;

(c) directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs to frame and notify a Women Police Personnel Protection and Protest Management Protocol for all States/Union Territories;

(d) directions for interim deployment of adequate trained women personnel and designation of a nodal officer not below the rank of ACP at each major deployment;

(e) directions for a time-bound mechanism for reporting and redressal of complaints by women police personnel, including access to the Internal Committee and action under Section 19(h) of the POSH Act;

(f) directions for examination of complaints against police by an officer or unit unconnected with the deployment;

(g) directions for a protocol for preservation, hash values, chain of custody and forensic examination of disputed digital material, including AI-generated content;

(h) directions that orders under Section 163 BNSS be made and enforced on principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, with designated protest areas and identification of media personnel;

Accordingly, the petition was tagged and listed for a further date.

Cause Title: Ashish Gopal Garg v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1367/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, Advocates Utkarsh Jaiswal, Digant Mishra, Divyansh Bisht, Devjani Deka Bharali, AOR Shweta Garg.

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: