The Supreme Court has ordered an SIT probe into lawyers' assault allegations linked to a Bar Council protest. The direction overrides earlier hesitation and requires findings to be placed before a magistrate.
Image used for representational purposes only
Newdelhi,Oct 12, 2026 16:28 IST
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure an investigation into a complaint filed by a group of lawyers who alleged they were assaulted during a protest demanding the resignation of Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said a special investigation team headed by a senior police officer must be formed to probe the complaint.
The court said the police must submit a report to the jurisdictional magistrate after completing the investigation. The order came while the court was hearing a plea against a September 21 Delhi High Court judgment that had dismissed a petition seeking a CBI or independent agency probe into the alleged assault.
According to the petitioners, the alleged assault took place inside and outside the BCI premises on the intervening night of August 20 and 21. Appearing for them, advocate Prashant Bhushan told the Supreme Court that the High Court had said no cognisable offence was made out. He said the petitioners had filed a complaint with the station house officer of IP Estate Police Station on August 22, but no FIR had been registered so far. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked, "Isn't it better to go for a private complaint before a magistrate?" Bhushan replied that beating someone was certainly a cognisable offence. He also said the BCI should have acted for professional misconduct against the lawyers accused of assaulting the advocates.
The bench noted that no notice had been issued to the respondents in the matter. It then said, "However, in order to ensure that the incident is appropriately investigated and such investigation be taken to its logical end, we dispose of this petition with the following directions" The court directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure that the August 22 complaint is investigated by an SIT, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. "We have said that conduct an investigation and submit a report to the jurisdictional magistrate," the bench told Bhushan.
In its earlier ruling, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the plea as not maintainable. The High Court recorded its "respectful disapproval" of the petitioners' claim that because Mishra was a member of Parliament from the ruling side, the Delhi Police would not act fairly while the CBI would. "No basis has been submitted to buttress this apprehension. In the absence of any specific basis, it is not fair to tarnish the entire Delhi Police force in this manner, especially when the petitioners' own case fails to make out a cognisable offence," it had said. The High Court had also said, "Besides, the apprehension argument must also fail because even the CBI, against whom mandamus to register a case and investigate has been sought, is a government body. One should resist the temptation to discredit any government organisation by such general, sweeping and baseless allegations. For, it generates counterproductive cynicism and distrust in the mind of common man against the entire ecosystem." It said the petitioners had an alternate remedy by filing a complaint before the magistrate under Section 223 BNSS.
The protest outside the BCI office on August 20 was held by a group of advocates alleging irregularities in its functioning and seeking Mishra's resignation. The demonstration, called by the All India Young Advocates Association and supported by the Cockroach Janta Party, also raised demands such as an Advocates Protection Act, insurance cover for all advocates, and regular and transparent inspections of law colleges. Mishra had earlier apologised to law students after criticism over a now-withdrawn order asking state bar councils not to enrol the current batch of graduating NALSAR students as advocates. The issue had arisen after some students of NALSAR University of Law wrote to the vice chancellor, registrar and professors opposing any move to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at the convocation. Mishra's first circular said allegations over a campaign against the CJI's participation were being examined and a report had been sought to identify those responsible, but the decision was reversed within hours after criticism from the legal fraternity. In its revised order, the BCI said the "vast majority" of students were innocent and should not suffer for the alleged misconduct of a few. The Supreme Court has now asked Delhi Police to investigate the lawyers' complaint through an SIT and place its findings before the magistrate.
- Ends