Delhi HC Rejects Probe
Delhi High Court Rejects Petition Seeking CBI Probe Into Bar Council Assault
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The petition was filed by advocates Kunal Yadav and others, who had complained to the SHO of IP Estate police station on August 22 and separately submitted representations to the Bar Council of India and the president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association before approaching the court.
2
The petitioners alleged that the group entered the BCI premises at approximately 1:15–1:20 a.m. and attacked advocates who were sitting in protest, rather than merely targeting demonstrators outside the building.
3
The court said the petitioners’ own case did not make out a cognizable offence, and noted that the request for preservation and release of CCTV recordings appeared, at least prima facie, to fall outside the domain of a criminal court.
4
Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the BCI chairman’s position as a ruling-party MP created an apprehension that the Delhi Police, being under the government, would not conduct a fair investigation; the court rejected that argument, observing that the CBI itself is also a government body.
5
Justice Kathpalia issued a broader warning against generalised attacks on public agencies, saying such allegations can create “counterproductive cynicism and distrust in the mind of common man against the entire ecosystem.”
The Delhi High Court rejected a petition seeking a CBI investigation into an alleged assault on advocates at the Bar Council of India on August 20-21. Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that petitioners had other legal remedies available, including filing complaints with the deputy commissioner of police and approaching a magistrate Verdictum. The court dismissed claims that Delhi Police could not act fairly because the BCI chairman is a ruling-party Member of Parliament.
What Happened During the Alleged Assault
Between 25 to 30 men, some posing as advocates, attacked lawyers conducting a peaceful demonstration at BCI premises at 1:15–1:20 a.m., according to the petition IndiaNews. The attackers allegedly entered the building and targeted the sitting protesters inside, not just those demonstrating outside. Police were present during the incident. Advocates Kunal Yadav and others filed a complaint with IP Estate police station on August 22 and submitted representations to BCI leadership before approaching the court.
Why the Court Rejected the CBI Probe Request
Justice Kathpalia found no evidence of police inaction that would justify overriding normal legal procedures Verdictum. He noted the petitioners themselves had not established a cognizable offense in their case. The court said the petition lacked a demonstrated basis for directing a court-ordered investigation outside standard channels. Petitioners must first exhaust statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before seeking judicial intervention.
The Argument About Political Interference
Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's status as an MP made fair investigation impossible, since Delhi Police answer to the government DailyHunt. The court rejected this reasoning, noting the CBI is also a government body. Justice Kathpalia warned against broad attacks on public institutions without concrete proof. Making unsupported allegations against government agencies creates "counterproductive cynicism and distrust," the judge said Verdictum.
CCTV Footage and Next Steps for Petitioners
Petitioners requested preservation and release of CCTV recordings from the incident. The court found this request fell outside the domain of criminal courts IndiaNews. Advocates now have a clear path forward: they can approach the deputy commissioner of police with evidence or file complaints before a magistrate under Section 223 of the new criminal procedure code. These statutory channels remain available to pursue the assault allegations.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
13
Articles
17
Reach
30
A
AnonymousAuthor
