Back
directs assaulted lawyers at BCI protest to approach for probe
The on Thursday declined to entertain a petition filed by a group of lawyers who were allegedly assaulted while protesting against Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, directing them instead to approach the for relief. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed that since the alleged assault occurred within the BCI premises in New Delhi, the High Court was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate , had sought a probe into the incident and an urgent direction for preservation of CCTV footage from the BCI office. Bhushan told the Court that around 20 to 25 lawyers were holding a peaceful sit-in demanding Mishra’s resignation and comprehensive reforms in the regulatory body when they were physically assaulted, dragged, and forcibly removed by persons claiming to be lawyers.
Background of the Protest and Alleged Assault
The protest at the BCI office was part of a growing wave of dissent against Manan Kumar Mishra, who has been at the centre of controversy following his order barring the enrolment of students from ’s 2026 batch due to their campaign against the Chief Justice of India. That order was later withdrawn after severe criticism from within and outside the legal fraternity. The protesting lawyers submitted a representation outlining a series of demands, including the removal of Mishra and a revamp of the BCI’s governance structure.
According to the petition, the assault took place in the presence of a large deployment of personnel, including an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who allegedly did not intervene. The entire incident was captured by CCTV cameras installed within the BCI premises, which remain under round‑the‑clock surveillance. Bhushan expressed apprehension that the footage might be destroyed, given the BCI’s control over the premises.
Court’s Observations on Jurisdiction and Professional Conduct
When Bhushan mentioned the matter for urgent listing, Chief Justice Kant remarked that “it should not appear as if everything must come to this court and that we have an .” The Bench emphasised that the High Court was perfectly capable of dealing with the petition and that the should not be seen as the first resort for every grievance.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in a notable exchange, underscored the special responsibilities of the legal profession. “Lawyers cannot protest unless this Court’s rulings concerning their response to maladministration in the judicial system permit it. It is a disciplined community with a well‑defined mechanism for redressal of grievances,” he observed. He added that while ordinary citizens enjoy the constitutional right to take to the streets, lawyers, as , are bound by a higher standard of conduct. The has, in previous judgments, laid down a for lawyers when dealing with perceived injustices in the administration of justice.
Bhushan countered that the is a guaranteed to every citizen, including lawyers. “If some lawyers are protesting, they can’t be beaten up,” he argued. The Bench agreed that assault was unacceptable, but maintained that the appropriate forum for seeking a CBI probe and preservation of evidence was the .
BCI Chairman’s Controversial Statement
A key element of the petitioners’ case was a statement allegedly made by Manan Kumar Mishra after the incident. Bhushan informed the Court that the BCI Chairman had reportedly referred to the protesting lawyers as “legal cockroaches” and boasted that “our lawyers came, beat them and sent them away.” The petitioners argued that such language not only condoned violence but encouraged lawlessness within the institution that is meant to regulate the legal profession. The Court did not comment on the veracity of the statement but allowed the petitioners to raise all these issues before the High Court.
Context of Pending BCI Reforms
The ’s decision to route the matter to the comes just a day after it passed significant directions in a separate petition challenging the continued occupation of the BCI Chairman’s office by the same office‑bearer for over a decade. In that case, the Court directed that the and the be “actively associated” with every policy decision of the BCI until its reconstitution through fresh elections. The Court also made it clear that Mishra’s present continuance could not be treated as an arrangement extending until 2030, observing that, , he was continuing only “” until a freshly constituted BCI elected its office‑bearers.
That petition, filed under , raises serious questions about the functioning, democratic accountability, transparency, and institutional governance of the BCI. It challenges a Gazette notification dated , which records the tenure of the Chairman and Vice‑Chairman from to . The petitioner contends that prescribes a two‑year tenure for the Chairman, making the five‑year notification .
Implications for Lawyer Activism and Institutional Accountability
The refusal of the to entertain the assault petition in the first instance sends a clear message about the hierarchy of judicial remedies. By directing the petitioners to the High Court, the Bench reinforced the principle that the is not a court of first instance for all grievances, especially those arising within a specific territorial jurisdiction. This approach also avoids the appearance of , as the Chief Justice noted.
For the legal community, the case highlights the tension between the right of lawyers to protest and their professional obligations. Justice Bagchi’s remarks about the “disciplined community” and the availability of institutional mechanisms may influence how future protests by lawyers are viewed by the courts. While the right to is constitutionally protected, the judiciary expects lawyers to exhaust internal grievance mechanisms before resorting to public demonstrations.
The preservation of CCTV footage remains a critical issue. The petitioners’ fear that the BCI might destroy evidence is not unfounded, given the sensitivity of the matter. The will now have to decide on an urgent basis whether to order the preservation of the footage and whether a CBI investigation is warranted. If the footage is lost, it could severely hamper the ability to identify the perpetrators and determine the role of the police present at the scene.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to defer to the in the assault case is a procedural win for the principle of , but it does not resolve the substantive allegations of violence and the BCI Chairman’s incendiary language. The legal fraternity will be watching closely how the High Court handles the matter, particularly the requests for a CBI probe and evidence preservation. Meanwhile, the broader issues of BCI governance and the tenure of its Chairman remain pending before the , ensuring that the spotlight on the country’s top legal regulator will not dim anytime soon.
