Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Assault on Lawyers During Protest Against BCI Chief

The Supreme Court Monday directed the Delhi Police to investigate the alleged attack on lawyers who had protested outside the Bar Council of India (BCI) office earlier this year against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana stated that an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) will head the investigation and further added that the probe must not be conducted by bearing the earlier observations passed by the Delhi High Court on the matter.

“The investigation will be conducted without being influenced by the observations passed by the High Court. Investigation is the statutory duty of the police. They have to do it,” clarified CJI Kant.

The top court also clarified today that the alleged attack itself disclose a cognizable offence.

“You have said in your order that this does not disclose a cognizable offence. Beating is certainly a cognizable offence. The Court does not require to observe like that. It is absolutely wrong. Without going into the crux of papers and other material to say that this is a non-cognizable offence,” observed CJI Kant.

The protest by the lawyers was held outside BCI office protesting its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 20-21. They had objected to a circular issued by Mishra which prevented the entire graduating batch of 20’26 students of NALSAR University from being enrolled as lawyers. The circular was allegedly issued by Mishra in retaliation to campaigns conducted by students of NALSAR University against CJI Surya Kant. The circular was later withdrawn by BCI following backlash.

Subsequently, some lawyers were protesting outside Mishra’ office demanding his resignation when 20 to 30 persons allegedly reached the location at around 1: 15 AM on August 21 and beat them up.

A complaint regarding the matter was made at the office of the Station House Officer (SHO) on August 22 wherein various offences including unlawful assembly, rioting, trespass, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy etc were pointed out. The complainants had also requested preservation of CCTV footage which captured the incident.

However, Delhi Police declined to file an FIR on the complaint.

The complainant lawyers (petitioners) in this case approached Delhi High Court with a plea seeking directions to the matter to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other independent investigating agency. Along with seeking directions for investigation, the petitioners had also sought directions to the BCI to preserve the CCTV recordings of the premises and submit it to the investigating agency.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea on September 21 this year stating that at the very face of it, the complaint made does not disclose any cognizable offence. The High Court had also noted that the petitioners approached the Court directly whereas they could have first approached the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police or the magistrate concerned with their grievance.

Petitioners then approached the apex court seeking relief.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners today informed the Court that they had sought for investigation by CBI as Delhi Police was under the control of the Central government.

The petitioners claimed that they were justified in not expecting an unbiased response from Delhi Police in the matter since BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra belonged to the ruling party.

“The High Court says that no cognizable offence has been disclosed. Did you not see that beating is not a cognizable offence?” Bhushan argued further today.

Justice Bagchi then asked Bhushan if he was alleging that Delhi Police was under the influence of someone.

“(Who) you are blaming? Influencing Delhi Police?” Justice Bagchi asked Bhushan.

Responding to the same, Bhushan replied, “Yes.”

“Why that would not influence CBI also? Apply your arguments to them,” the CJI then asked Bhushan.

Bhushan replied that the panel which selected the Director of CBI consisted of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India and even administratively, the CBI reporting to the government.

The Court then said that petitioners could instead approach a magistrate under Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and request for an investigation into the matter. The Court also said that this Court could pass orders for preservation of CCTV footage. Additionally, CJI Kant observed that the magistrate could be asked to look into the identity of the accused who allegedly assaulted the lawyers.

However, Bhushan contended that the petitioners had already approached the police.

“We went to Delhi Police. We gave complaint. It is two months. Delhi Police has not registered FIR till today,” Bhushan said.

Bhushan then requested the Court to order an independent investigation by either constituting an SIT or asking a retired officer to oversee the investigation.

To this, Chief Justice Kant clarified that SIT will have to consist of police officers only. The SIT can only consist of retired officers as members to assist the investigation.

“You have every right to say that. You are our client. If they make a serious allegation, we have to see that it gets investigated. Only question is the methodology,” said CJI Kant.

The Court then directed that the Delhi Police will investigate the complaint made and further added that the investigation will be supervised by an officer of Deputy Commissioner rank.

The Court further said that the petitioners are welcome to approach this Court again if they are unsatisfied with the investigation.