दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने बार काउंसिल के चेयरमैन विवाद में FIR की याचिका को अस्वीकार किया

Delhi High Court: In a case concerning a petition seeking registration and investigation into an alleged assault of advocates at the premises of the Bar Council of India, a Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy under the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court observed that the petitioners had not approached the DCP concerned or the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS and had not established any negligence or inaction on the part of the SHO. The Court further held that the allegations, at the highest, disclosed the offence of causing hurt under Section 114, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which was non-cognizable, and consequently, in view of Section 174 BNSS, the appropriate remedy lay before the Magistrate concerned. Accordingly, the Court declined to issue a mandamus directing registration and investigation of the case and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

Background

The petitioners, approached the Court against the alleged misuse of the office of the Chairman of the Bar Council of India by Respondent 1, who is also a Senior Advocate and a Member of Parliament. The dispute arose in August 2026 when the graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad objected to receiving their degrees from the Chief Justice of India at the convocation. On 13 August 2026, Respondent 1, purporting to act on behalf of the Bar Council of India, issued a directive to all State Bar Councils restraining enrolment of students graduating from NALSAR in 2026. The directive was subsequently modified following widespread criticism, and Respondent 1 tendered a public apology to the law students.

Thereafter, on 20 August 2026, pursuant to a call for peaceful demonstration issued by the All India Young Advocates Association, a group of young advocates assembled outside the office of the Bar Council of India and submitted a written representation. About 10—14 advocates, including the petitioners, thereafter, commenced a peaceful sit-in protest within the premises. At about 1.15 a.m.—1.20 a.m., a group of about 25—30 men, several of whom were allegedly dressed in advocates’ attire, entered the premises, surrounded the protesting advocates and allegedly assaulted, slapped, thrashed and dragged them. The petitioners who were present on the first floor and came downstairs were also allegedly assaulted, the incident having taken place in the presence of police officials.

On 22 August 2026, some of the petitioners lodged a detailed complaint before the SHO, PS IP Estate, and also addressed a representation to the Bar Council of India seeking action against the persons involved. On 24 August 2026, 26 advocates, including the petitioners, submitted a representation to the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Alleging that no action had been taken despite the availability of video recordings of the incident in the public domain, the petitioners instituted the present proceedings. The petition was initially listed before a coordinate Bench, however, upon recusal by the Judge, it was assigned to the present Bench for preliminary hearing on 18 September 2026, when learned counsel for the petitioners was heard on the issue of maintainability and the matter was reserved for orders.

Analysis

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternate efficacious remedy under the BNSS. The Court reiterated that although the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, its exercise is subject to judicially evolved self-imposed restrictions, including the rule of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies. Relying upon Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13, and Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798, the Court observed that where the statute itself provides a remedial procedure, the aggrieved person must ordinarily avail of such remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction.

In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioners had lodged a complaint before the SHO, PS IP Estate, on 22 August 2026, but had neither approached the DCP concerned nor the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS and had not set up any case of negligence or inaction on the part of the SHO. The Court further held that the complaints filed by the petitioners did not disclose any cognizable offence, as the allegations of beating, slapping, thrashing and dragging, in the absence of any allegation of use of a weapon, at the most constituted the offence of causing hurt under Section 114 BNS, which is non-cognizable. Consequently, in view of Section 174 BNSS, the Magistrate concerned was the appropriate forum and the police could not investigate such offence. The Court also rejected the contention regarding inability of the Magistrate to secure CCTV footage, observing that the provisions of Chapter XVI BNSS sufficiently address such concerns and, in any event, the petitioners themselves had pleaded that the videos were available in the public domain.

Decision

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioners had an alternate efficacious remedy of filing a complaint case before the Magistrate concerned under Section 223 BNSS and, therefore, no mandamus could be issued directing registration and investigation of the case. The prayer seeking a mandamus to the Bar Council of India to consider the representation dated 20 August 2026 was also declined, as the demands therein, including resignation of Respondent 1, accountability of BCI members, welfare of advocates, legal education reforms and consideration of a no-confidence motion, had no bearing on the prayer for investigation into the alleged incident. The Court also expressed respectful disapproval of the submission that the Delhi Police would not act fairly merely because Respondent 1 was a Member of Parliament from the ruling dispensation, observing that no specific basis had been furnished for such apprehension. In view of the aforesaid, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

[Kunal Yadav v. Manan Kumar Mishra, W.P.(CRL) 2850 of 2026, decided on 21-9-2026]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Prashant Bhushan, Anurag Tiwary and Anushka Singh, Advocates

For the Respondents: Amol Sinha, ASC for the State with SI Vikram and SI Harsh Kumar, Shoumendu Mukherji, Senior Panel Counsel, Simran Kumari, Virat Raj Mishra and Pooja, with Abhishek Batra, Puneet Dhawan, Megha Sharma, Aniruddha Ghosh, Kaberi Sharma, Advocates

Powered by Nyaya 247 News