Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Assault On Advocates At Bar Council Of India Premises

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by advocates Kunal Yadav and others seeking a direction for registration of a case and an independent investigation into an alleged assault at the premises of the Bar Council of India (BCI) during the intervening night of August 20 and 21, 2026.

Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy before the concerned Magistrate and therefore the High Court’s writ jurisdiction was not required to be invoked at this stage.

Background

The petitioners, who are practising advocates, alleged that a group of persons entered the BCI premises during the night and assaulted advocates who were participating in a sit-in protest. According to the petition, the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of police personnel.

The petitioners sought a direction to the CBI, or another independent agency, to register a case and conduct an investigation. They also sought preservation and handing over of CCTV recordings from the BCI premises and directions concerning their representation submitted to the Council.

The petitioners had approached the SHO of Police Station IP Estate with a complaint on August 22, 2026. However, the Court noted that they had not subsequently approached the concerned DCP or the Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Justice Kathpalia examined whether the petitioners could directly invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction for registration and investigation when statutory remedies were available under the BNSS.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions explaining that criminal procedure provides a structured mechanism when the police do not register an FIR or when a complainant has concerns regarding investigation.

"The availability of such remedies, coupled with the supervisory jurisdiction of constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution demonstrates that no legislative vacuum exists warranting the intervention sought. The appropriate course lies in ensuring faithful and even-handed enforcement of existing law."

The Court observed that the petitioners had not explained why approaching the DCP or the Magistrate would not be an effective remedy. It therefore found the writ petition premature on the issue of maintainability.

The Court further examined the allegations contained in the complaints. It observed that the allegations, as presented, concerned beating, slapping, thrashing and dragging of the petitioners.

According to the Court, the allegations, at the most, disclosed the offence of causing hurt under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which it treated as non-cognizable in the circumstances before it. The Court therefore held that the matter could be dealt with by the concerned Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS.

The High Court concluded that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a complaint before the concerned Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS.

Justice Kathpalia consequently declined to issue a mandamus directing any authority to register and investigate the case. The Court also declined the separate prayer concerning the petitioners’ representation to the BCI.

The Court further recorded its disapproval of the submission that the Delhi Police would not act fairly merely because respondent no.1 was a Member of Parliament belonging to the ruling dispensation, observing that no specific basis had been placed before it for such an apprehension.

The petition was ultimately dismissed as not maintainable.