Not Fair To Tarnish Entire Delhi Police Force: Delhi High Court Rejects CBI Probe Plea Into Assault On Advocates Protesting Against Manan Kumar Mishra

The High Court also disapproved the unsupported contention that the Delhi Police would not investigate fairly because Mishra belonged to the ruling dispensation.

The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by practising advocates seeking directions to the CBI or another independent agency to register a case and investigate the alleged assault. They also sought preservation and transfer of the Bar Council premises’ CCTV recordings and consideration of their representation by the Bar Council of India.

A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed: “... I must place on record a respectful disapproval of the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners that since respondent no.1 is a Member of Parliament from the ruling dispensation, the Delhi Police will not act fairly, but the CBI will do so. 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 petitioners’ own case fails to make out a cognizable offence. Besides, the apprehension argument must also fail because even CBI against whom mandamus to register 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.”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioners. Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha appeared for the State. Advocate Simran Kumari represented the Bar Council of India. Senior Panel Counsel Shoumendu Mukherji appeared for the other respondents.

Background

The petitioners were advocates who participated in a protest outside the Bar Council of India’s office following a controversy concerning a directive issued by Mishra to State Bar Councils regarding the enrolment of a graduating batch from NALSAR University of Law.

According to the petition, the directive was subsequently modified amid criticism, and Mishra issued a public apology to the law students. A Bar association later rejected the apology and sought his resignation as Chairman of the Bar Council of India.

A group of young advocates called for a peaceful demonstration outside the Bar Council’s office. The petitioners claimed that several advocates entered the premises, submitted a representation and later commenced a sit-in protest.

They alleged that during the night, a group of around 25 to 30 men, some dressed as advocates, entered the premises and assaulted, slapped, thrashed and dragged the protesters in the presence of police officials. The petitioners stated that videos of the incident were available in the public domain.

Some of the petitioners subsequently submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer and representations to the Bar Council and the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Alleging that no action had followed, they approached the High Court for a CBI investigation.

Their counsel argued that the Delhi Police fell under the Government and that a fair investigation was doubtful because Mishra was a Member of Parliament from the ruling party. It was also contended that a Magistrate could neither direct a CBI investigation nor order investigative measures such as seizure of the CCTV footage.

Court’s Observations

The High Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and discretionary. Ordinarily, it should not be invoked where an effective statutory remedy is available unless the matter falls within recognised exceptions.

Referring to Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (1964), the Court reiterated that the amplitude of writ jurisdiction requires the High Courts to observe self-imposed restrictions. It also relied upon Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra (2026), where the Supreme Court held that a person complaining of non-registration of an FIR must ordinarily exhaust the remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before invoking Article 226.

The Court further referred to Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2026), which recognised the remedies before the Superintendent of Police and Magistrate as a comprehensive and layered mechanism for addressing non-registration of an FIR and supervising an investigation.

Applying these principles, the Court observed: “As regards the alleged incident, the complaint to the SHO, PS IP Estate was lodged on 22.08.2026. No case has been set up by the petitioners to satisfy this court if the SHO concerned is guilty of negligence or inaction. Admittedly, till date no complaint has been lodged by the petitioners before the concerned DCP (equivalent in Delhi to the Superintendent of Police), what to say of approaching the concerned magistrate under Section 223 BNSS. Not even whisper has been made in the petition as to why these are not considered efficacious remedies.”

The Court held that the petitioners could institute a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court examined whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence warranting registration and investigation by either the Delhi Police or the CBI.

It noted that the alleged assailants were not stated to have carried weapons. The allegations were that they beat, slapped, thrashed and dragged the petitioners. According to the Court, this at most constituted causing hurt under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is a non-cognizable offence.

The Court observed: “That, at the most constitutes offence of causing hurt, defined under Section 114 BNS, which is a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, in view of Section 174 BNSS it is only the concerned magistrate, who can act; and rather, in view of sub-section (2) of Section 174 BNSS, no police officer shall investigate such offence.”

The Court rejected the argument that a Magistrate could not direct the seizure of CCTV recordings, noting the scope of the provisions contained in Chapter XVI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It also recorded that the petitioners themselves claimed that videos of the incident were publicly available.

The Court concluded: “To conclude, the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available to them in the form of filing a complaint case in the court of the concerned magistrate under Section 223 BNSS, so I do not find it a fit case to issue mandamus to any authority to register the case and investigate.”

The petitioners also sought a direction requiring the Bar Council of India to decide their representation. They argued that this relief was intertwined with their request for an investigation.

The Court found that the representation raised demands concerning Mishra’s resignation, accountability of Bar Council members, advocates’ welfare, legal education reforms and consideration of a no-confidence motion. These issues were unrelated to the request for investigation into the alleged assault.

The Court held: “Since no case qua the other prayers is made out, there is no occasion to grant prayer C as well. Even otherwise, in my view the demands raised in the said representation viz. resignation of respondent no.1, accountability of the BCI members, welfare of advocates, legal education reforms, and consideration of no-confidence motion have no bearing at all with the prayer for investigation into the alleged incident.”

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court held that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and that the petitioners had an effective remedy by filing a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It declined to direct the CBI or any other agency to register and investigate the case, refused the connected relief against the Bar Council of India and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

Cause Title: Kunal Yadav & Ors. v. Manan Kumar Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8081)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Anurag Tiwary and Anushka Singh

Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha; Advocates Simran Kumari, Virat Raj Mishra and Pooja; Senior Panel Counsel Shoumendu Mukherji, with Advocates Abhishek Batra, Puneet Dhawan, Megha Sharma, Aniruddha Ghosh and Kaberi Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment