The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken suo motu cognisance of the detention of a journalist in Guwahati, Assam. The journalist was covering a protest against alleged financial irregularities at Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd when the police detained him. The commission has sought a detailed report from Assam’s Director General of Police (DGP) regarding the incident.
Eyewitnesses claimed that police officers forcefully stopped the journalist from recording visuals of the demonstration. Despite showing his press credentials, the authorities took him into custody for questioning. Several journalist associations and civil rights groups condemned the detention, calling it an attack on press freedom.
NHRC issued a notice to the Assam DGP, directing the state authorities to explain the circumstances leading to the journalist’s detention. The commission emphasized that journalists have the right to report on public interest matters without fear of intimidation or unlawful restrictions. The commission also asked whether any departmental action had been taken against the officials involved.
The journalist, identified as an independent reporter covering corruption and governance issues, was reportedly held for several hours before being released. He described the ordeal as a violation of his fundamental rights. He said that police officers questioned him about his sources and deleted some of his footage. His legal representatives are considering filing a formal complaint.
The Assam government has not issued an official statement, but sources within the administration suggested that the police acted to prevent a law-and-order situation. Senior officials maintained that officers followed standard procedures and released the journalist once his identity was verified. However, press organizations continue to demand accountability and assurances that such incidents will not happen again.
Various journalist unions in Assam have expressed concerns about increasing restrictions on press freedom. They argue that the detention highlights a growing trend of suppressing independent reporting. The Editors Guild of India, along with regional journalist bodies, has urged the NHRC to conduct a thorough inquiry. They have also called for reforms to ensure better protection for media personnel.
Legal experts have pointed out that preventing a journalist from reporting in a public space violates constitutional rights. They stress that unless a journalist engages in illegal activity, authorities have no justification to detain them. The NHRC’s intervention is expected to shed light on whether law enforcement overstepped its boundaries.
The opposition in Assam has seized the opportunity to criticize the government. Political leaders have accused the administration of stifling dissent and using law enforcement to intimidate the media. They have demanded an independent investigation and urged the government to reaffirm its commitment to press freedom.
Human rights activists have also voiced their concerns. Many believe that such incidents discourage journalists from reporting on sensitive topics. Activists argue that a free press is essential for democracy and that any attempt to suppress it weakens public trust in the government.
The NHRC’s demand for a report from the DGP has placed pressure on Assam’s police force to justify its actions. If the report suggests any wrongdoing, the commission could recommend corrective measures, including disciplinary action against the officers involved.
As the case unfolds, journalists in Assam remain vigilant. Many are calling for stronger legal protections to ensure that media professionals can carry out their duties without fear of harassment. Several journalist groups are planning protests to demand accountability and policy changes to prevent similar detentions in the future.
The incident has sparked a broader debate about press freedom in India. While the NHRC’s intervention provides hope for a fair inquiry, journalists and civil society organizations are watching closely to see whether meaningful action follows. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how authorities handle journalists covering sensitive issues in the future.