Vivek Sagar earns his living through photography. But after being detained by police while covering a protest in Delhi, the independent photographer says he was left with a damaged camera and without his phone. He also says photographs were deleted during the incident.
Sagar says he has made repeated visits to the police station to recover his phone, but it has not been returned. He is now raising funds to repair or replace his equipment so he can resume his work documenting street life and public events.
For independent photographers, equipment costs can become a serious financial burden when something goes wrong. Without the backing of a media organisation, they may have to cover repair or replacement costs themselves while losing opportunities to work.
Sagar’s experience comes amid a wider debate over the treatment of people covering protests in Delhi and the protections available to those working outside established newsrooms.
On October 16, the Supreme Court heard allegations of police assault and harassment against journalists covering protests at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. The hearing raised questions about how authorities identify journalists and what protection should be available to those working independently.
“The difficulty is when everyone claims to be a journalist under the right to freedom of expression,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed during the hearing.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised a related concern about identifying journalists in the digital era. “In this era of technology, anybody with a mobile can be a journalist,” he said, according to reports of the hearing.
The court indicated that it would consider guidelines on the issue, including safeguards for accredited journalists and people working independently in digital media.
The discussion reflects the range of people now engaged in reporting. Alongside staff reporters and photographers are freelancers and independent photojournalists who document events and publish their work through digital platforms without formal newsroom affiliations.
The challenge is to distinguish people engaged in journalism from others recording events while ensuring that those covering public gatherings are not subjected to arbitrary action. The court has yet to settle how such protections should be defined.
The hearing followed protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the revision of electoral rolls. Journalists covering the demonstrations reported detentions and alleged mistreatment by police. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that at least 39 journalists were detained in Delhi on October 10 and 11. Its findings drew on news reports, interviews and verified social media posts. The organisation later reported that at least 43 journalists had been detained across Delhi and other cities during the protests. Human Rights Watch also documented detentions and reported that three women journalists alleged sexual harassment by police personnel.
Other accounts described journalists being manhandled and having their phones seized. The allegations have prompted calls for investigation. Delhi Police alleged that some people at the protests had posed as journalists and interfered with police operations. Journalists and media organisations, meanwhile, reported detentions despite some individuals identifying themselves as members of the press. The incidents have also highlighted the importance of phones and cameras in documenting public events. For independent photographers, losing access to recorded material or essential equipment can disrupt their work and affect their income.
Photographers employed by media organisations may receive equipment from their employers. Newsrooms can also provide editorial support and intervene when a reporter faces difficulties while working. Independent practitioners often have to manage these responsibilities themselves.
They pay for their own cameras and phones and cover travel and repair costs. Their income may depend on assignments or the sale of their photographs, leaving them vulnerable to unexpected expenses.
For Sagar, the immediate concern is getting his equipment back or raising enough money to replace it. His appeal highlights the financial strain an independent photographer can face when the tools needed to earn a living become unavailable.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of journalist protections raises a broader question about how safeguards should apply to people who report without formal affiliations to newspapers or television channels. The hearing has brought that issue into the legal debate, but the question remains unresolved.
For independent photographers such as Sagar, continuing to report depends on access to equipment and the resources to sustain their work. His effort to return behind the camera is unfolding alongside a wider discussion about the recognition and protection of people who document public events.