The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the alleged illegal detention and manhandling of lawyers by Delhi Police during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on October 10. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seek a status report on the incident, preservation of CCTV footage, and a review of prohibitory restrictions that hampered access to courts and internet services.

The October 10 protest, organized by lawyers demanding accountability from the Election Commission over the electoral roll revision, escalated when police detained several advocates near the Supreme Court. According to the SCBA petition, drawn by Advocate Reepak Kansal, senior advocates, women lawyers, and senior citizens were forcibly placed in police vehicles without being informed of the grounds for their detention. The SCBA received video evidence of the incident, and the detained advocates were released only after intervention by the Bar body. The petition specifically seeks a status report detailing the legal basis and duration of each detention, the identity of officers involved, any force used, and the instructions issued through the police chain of command.

Two Bar Petitions Seek Accountability for October 10 Detentions

SCAORA’s petition, filed through Secretary Yugandhara Pawar Jha, provides graphic accounts of the alleged police excesses. It refers to video footage showing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat being carried by his arms and legs by police personnel, during which his shirt was torn. Women advocates, including Anna Oomen and Anne Mathew, were allegedly manhandled by women police officers who were not displaying name tags. One advocate reportedly sustained a dislocated shoulder. The detained lawyers were taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex in Surajmal Vihar, New Delhi.

“The right to assemble peacefully and express dissent cannot be rendered illusory by the indiscriminate use of force or by action that intimidates participants and discourages the exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms,” the SCAORA plea states. The association argues that police action must comply with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Both petitions challenge the scope and implementation of prohibitory restrictions imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. They allege that barricades on roads around the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Patiala House Courts, and Rouse Avenue Courts obstructed access for lawyers and litigants. The SCBA has sought production of the complete Section 163 order, including its reasons, territorial extent, duration, and operative conditions. It also demands a review of the territorial extent and implementation of the order, ensuring restrictions remain lawful and proportionate.

Video Evidence Shows Senior Advocate Carried by Police

The petitions also raise serious concerns over the suspension of internet services and the closure of the Supreme Court Metro Station on October 10. SCAORA contends that such restrictions can obstruct access to virtual hearings, the filing of pleadings, and communication between advocates and clients. “Advocates occupy an indispensable position in the administration of justice and must be able to discharge their professional functions without unlawful interference, intimidation or coercion,” the plea states. The association has sought directions to ensure that restrictions on internet and telecommunication services do not arbitrarily interfere with court proceedings or access to justice.

The SCBA petition clarifies that it does not support strikes, boycotts, or abstention from court work, emphasizing that the legal challenge is solely against the police action and the disproportionate restrictions.

Internet Shutdown Raises Constitutional Questions

The Supreme Court had earlier taken note of the situation during a special Sunday sitting on October 11. It directed that lawyers, journalists, and other professionals should not be obstructed from performing their duties and issued directions concerning restrictions on public transport, internet services, and movement across Delhi. The new petitions build on that order, seeking concrete accountability measures.

Among the specific prayers in the SCBA petition are a writ of mandamus directing production of the Section 163 BNSS order, preservation of CCTV and body-camera footage, detention records, and any video recordings concerning the incident. It also seeks reasonable arrangements and designated access routes to courts and advocates’ chambers, subject to lawful security checks. SCAORA, in turn, has demanded an independent, impartial, and time-bound inquiry into the alleged police excesses, along with identification of the police personnel involved and appropriate action against them.

Petitions Seek Preservation of Evidence and Accountability

The two petitions now await listing before the Supreme Court. With the Bar bodies united in their demand for a thorough investigation and a review of emergency-style restrictions, the case is expected to be heard urgently. The outcome could set important precedents on the limits of police powers during protests, the use of Section 163 BNSS, and the protection of lawyers’ right to access courts and practice their profession without fear of reprisal. The Supreme Court’s intervention, if granted, may also clarify the extent to which internet shutdowns and metro station closures can be imposed without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.