SC orders SIT probe into alleged assault on lawyers

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi police commissioner to ensure that a complaint filed by a group of lawyers, who were allegedly assaulted during a protest to demand the resignation of Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, is investigated. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said a special investigation team (SIT) headed by a senior police officer be constituted for probing the complaint.

It said that after conducting the investigation, the police would submit a report before the jurisdictional magistrate. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea challenging a September 21 verdict of the Delhi High Court. The high court had dismissed a plea by a group of lawyers seeking a probe by the CBI or any other independent agency into the alleged assault, saying it was not maintainable.

The petitioners before the high court had sought an investigation into the alleged assault on them and other advocates inside and outside the premises of the BCI on the intervening night of August 20-21.

During the hearing on Monday, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, told the apex 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 (SHO) of the IP Estate Police Station here on August 22 but no FIR had been registered to date.

“Isn’t it better to go for a private complaint before a magistrate?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Bhushan argued that beating someone is certainly a cognisable offence.

He said the BCI should have taken action for professional misconduct against lawyers who allegedly assaulted these advocates.

The bench noted it was conscious of the fact that no notice has been issued to the respondents in the matter.

“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…,” it said.

It directed the Delhi police commissioner to ensure that the complaint made to the police on August 22 is investigated and for that purpose, a SIT be constituted to probe the matter, uninfluenced by the observations of the high court.

“We have said that conduct an investigation and submit a report to the jurisdictional magistrate,” the bench told Bhushan.

In its verdict, the high court had recorded its “respectful disapproval” of a submission made by the petitioners that since Mishra was a member of Parliament from the ruling dispensation, the Delhi Police would not act fairly but 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,” the high court had 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 had said.

The high court had said the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available to them in the form of filing a complaint case in the court of the magistrate concerned under Section 223 BNSS and it does not find it a fit case to issue mandamus to any authority to register the case and investigate.

A group of advocates on August 20 held a protest outside the BCI office here, alleging irregularities in its functioning and demanding Mishra’s resignation.

The demonstration saw members of the legal fraternity raising several demands, including the implementation of an Advocates Protection Act, provision of insurance coverage for all advocates, and regular and transparent inspections of law colleges.

The protest was called by the All India Young Advocates Association and supported by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

Mishra had earlier apologised to law students after facing criticism over a now-withdrawn order to the state bar councils not to enrol any of the current batch of graduating NALSAR students as advocates.

The controversy began after a section of students of NALSAR University of Law wrote to the vice chancellor, registrar and professors of the institution, opposing any proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest to the varsity’s convocation.

In the first circular, Mishra said it was examining allegations regarding a campaign against the CJI’s participation in the university’s convocation and had sought a report identifying those responsible.

The decision was reversed within hours following criticism from members of the legal fraternity.