The Supreme Court has directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to ensure a thorough investigation into a complaint filed by a group of lawyers alleging assault during a protest. The protest was reportedly held to demand the resignation of the Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana ordered the formation of a special investigation team (SIT). This team is to be led by a senior police officer and tasked with probing the complaint. Following the investigation, the police are required to submit a report to the jurisdictional magistrate.
This directive comes as the apex court heard a plea challenging a September 21 verdict from the Delhi High Court. The High Court had previously dismissed a plea by the group of lawyers seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another independent agency into the alleged assault, deeming the plea not maintainable.
The lawyers, who were petitioners before the High Court, had sought an investigation into the alleged assault that they claimed occurred both inside and outside the Bar Council of India premises on the intervening night of August 20 and August 21. During the Supreme Court hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, informed the court that the High Court had concluded that no cognizable offence had been made out.
Bhushan argued that physical assault is unequivocally a cognizable offence. He further contended that the Bar Council of India should have initiated proceedings for professional misconduct against the lawyers accused of assaulting the petitioners. The bench acknowledged that no formal notice had been issued to the respondents in the matter. However, the court emphasized its commitment to ensuring the incident is appropriately investigated and brought to a logical conclusion.
The Supreme Court’s order mandates the Delhi Police Commissioner to oversee the investigation of the complaint lodged on August 22. The constitution of the SIT is to proceed without being influenced by any observations made by the Delhi High Court. The apex court reiterated that the investigation should be conducted and a report submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate.
In its previous verdict, the Delhi High Court had expressed its ‘respectful disapproval’ of a submission made by the petitioners. This submission suggested that due to the BCI chairman’s affiliation with the ruling party as a Member of Parliament, the Delhi Police might not act impartially, and the CBI would be a more appropriate agency. The High Court had stated that no basis was provided to support this apprehension and considered it unfair to tarnish the reputation of the entire Delhi Police force without specific evidence.
The High Court further noted that even the CBI, if involved, is a government body, and attempting to discredit any government organization with sweeping, baseless allegations can foster counterproductive cynicism and distrust among the public. The court had also pointed out that the petitioners had an alternative, effective remedy available by filing a complaint case before the concerned magistrate under Section 223 of the BNSS (likely referring to a procedural section related to private complaints). Consequently, the High Court found no justification to issue a mandamus to any authority to register a case and investigate.
The protest by the group of advocates outside the BCI office on August 20 stemmed from allegations of irregularities in the council’s functioning and a demand for Manan Kumar Mishra’s resignation. The demonstration also highlighted broader demands from the legal fraternity, including the implementation of an Advocates Protection Act, provision of insurance coverage for all advocates, and the establishment of regular and transparent inspection procedures for law colleges.
The protest was reportedly called by the All India Young Advocates Association and received support from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Manan Kumar Mishra had previously issued an apology to law students following criticism over a now-withdrawn order that instructed state bar councils not to enrol any students from the current graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law.
This controversy originated after a section of NALSAR University of Law students wrote to the institution’s vice-chancellor, registrar, and professors, opposing the proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for the varsity’s convocation. An initial circular from Mishra indicated that the BCI was examining allegations of a campaign against the Chief Justice’s participation and sought a report to identify those responsible. However, this decision was reversed within hours due to criticism from members of the legal community. A subsequent modified order stated that the vast majority of students were innocent and should not face repercussions for the alleged misconduct of a few.
The Chenab Times News Desk