The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police to investigate the alleged assault on lawyers who had protested at the Bar Council of India (BCI) premises in August against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed that the investigation be headed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and that a report be submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate.
The top court clarified that the investigation must proceed without being influenced by observations made earlier in the matter by the Delhi High Court.
"The investigation will be without being influenced by the observations of the High Court. Investigation is the statutory duty of the police. They have to do it," said CJI Kant.
The Supreme Court today also questioned the High Court's observation that the alleged assault did not disclose a cognizable offence.
"Beating is certainly a cognizable offence. There is no need for the Court to observe otherwise. It is absolutely wrong. Without examining critical papers and other material, to say that this is a non-cognizable offence," said CJI Kant.
The matter concerns a protest carried out by some lawyers at the BCI premises on August 20-21, 2026, against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.
The protest had followed the controversy over a BCI directive issued by Mishra barring the enrolment of NALSAR University's 2026 graduating batch over campaigns against CJI Surya Kant. The BCI circular was later withdrawn amid criticism.
The directive led some lawyers to stage a demonstration outside the BCI office demanding Chairman Mishra's resignation. While they were protesting, 20 to 30 persons are alleged to have arrived at around 1:15 AM on August 21 and assaulted the protesting lawyers.
A complaint was filed on the incident with the Station House Officer (SHO) on August 22, alleging the commission of offences such as unlawful assembly, rioting, trespass, criminal intimidation and conspiracy. The complainants also sought the preservation of CCTV footage of the incident.
However, the Delhi Police did not register a First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of the complaint.
The complainant-lawyers (petitioners), therefore, approached the High Court seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another independent agency, along with directions to the BCI to preserve and hand over CCTV recordings of its premises to the investigating agency.
The High Court, however, dismissed the petition on September 21, observing that the complaint, as presented, did not disclose a cognizable offence. The High Court had also noted that the petitioners had not first approached the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police or the magistrate with their grievance.
This led the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
During today's hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners had sought a CBI probe because the Delhi Police came under the Central government.
The petitioners had argued that the Delhi Police cannot be expected to act impartially in the matter, since Manan Kumar Mishra belonged to the ruling party.
"The High Court says that there is no cognizable offence. Beating is not a cognizable offence?" Bhushan further contended today.
Justice Bagchi asked Bhushan whether he was alleging that the Delhi Police had been influenced.
"(Who) are you blaming? Influence on Delhi Police?" he asked.
To which Bhushan replied, "Yes."
"Why would the same not apply to the CBI also?" the CJI asked.
Bhushan responded that the CBI Director was selected by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, although the agency was also administratively under the government.
The Court suggested that the petitioners consider approaching a magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) with a plea seeking investigation. The Bench added that the Court could ensure that CCTV footage was made available.
CJI Kant also said the magistrate could direct an investigation to establish the identities of the alleged assailants.
Bhushan, however, pointed out that the petitioners had already approached the police.
"We went to Delhi Police. We lodged a complaint. It has been two months. Not even an FIR has been registered by Delhi Police so far," he said.
Bhushan urged the Court to order an independent probe, suggesting that it could constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or appoint a retired police officer to oversee the investigation.
CJI Kant, however, clarified that an SIT must comprise police officers authorised to investigate, while retired officers could only assist with the probe.
"Your clients have a right to say this (that an investigation is required). If it is serious, we have to ensure that it is addressed. The only question is the methodology," observed CJI Kant.
The Court then directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure that the complaint was investigated by a Deputy Commissioner-rank officer.
"In order to ensure that the incident is appropriately investigated and such investigation is taken to its logical conclusion, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, is directed to ensure that the complaint dated August 22, 2026, is appropriately investigated. For that purpose, the investigation shall be headed by a fairly senior officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner," directed the Court.
It also said the petitioners could return to the Supreme Court if they were dissatisfied with the investigation.
[Read Live Coverage]