The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer of Deputy Commissioner of Police rank to probe the alleged assault on lawyers who were protesting outside the Bar Council of India (BCI) premises against its Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra. The bench also allowed the aggrieved advocates to simultaneously file a private complaint before the jurisdictional metropolitan magistrate, creating a dual legal route to ensure a thorough and impartial inquiry.

The order came on a petition filed by the victim lawyers after the Delhi High Court had rejected their plea for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, holding that the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence and that they had not first approached the concerned DCP or magistrate. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

Protest Over Controversial BCI Directive Led to Clashes

The incident dates back to August 20–21, 2026, when a group of lawyers gathered at the BCI headquarters in New Delhi to demand Mishra’s resignation. The protest was triggered by a controversial BCI directive that threatened to withhold law degrees and freeze advocate enrolments for the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, over student campaigns against inviting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as a convocation guest. The directive was later withdrawn amid widespread criticism from senior advocates, law academics, and student unions.

According to the complaint filed on August 22, around 20–30 persons arrived at the BCI premises at about 1:15 am on August 21 and assaulted the protesting lawyers. The complaint alleged offences including unlawful assembly, rioting, trespass, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. The complainants also sought preservation of CCTV footage. However, no First Information Report (FIR) was registered despite two months having passed, prompting the advocates to approach the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed their petition on September 21.

Supreme Court Emphasizes Cognizable Nature of Assault

During the hearing, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Delhi Police could not be expected to conduct an impartial investigation because it operates under executive control, and Manan Kumar Mishra is a Rajya Sabha member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. He contended that an independent agency like the CBI was necessary, pointing to the higher selection panel for the CBI Director that includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

The bench, however, questioned whether the same apprehension could apply to the CBI. Justice Bagchi noted that the petitioners could raise similar concerns about the CBI’s independence. Nonetheless, the court firmly dismissed any suggestion that the assault was not a cognizable offence. Chief Justice Surya Kant unequivocally stated that physical assault, or "beating," constitutes a cognizable offence regardless of any judicial observations to the contrary. This clear pronouncement set aside the High Court’s reasoning and paved the way for the SIT direction.

Dual Legal Route Established for Protesting Advocates

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure that the complaint lodged at the IP Estate police station is properly investigated by an SIT headed by a senior DCP-rank officer. The court clarified that the investigation must not be influenced by the Delhi High Court’s earlier observations. At the same time, the bench allowed the petitioners to avail their statutory remedy by filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional metropolitan magistrate, who has the authority to take cognizance and order further investigation if needed.

Justice Bagchi remarked during the hearing that the court’s primary concern was the methodology of the investigation. When Bhushan pressed for a CBI probe, the judge observed, “It seems you are more interested in prosecuting the Chairman rather than the assailants.” Bhushan replied that Mishra’s public statements had emboldened the attackers and that the BCI had failed to initiate professional misconduct proceedings. The bench noted that the BCI Chief was not physically present at the scene but agreed that an impartial investigation was necessary.

The court also addressed the petitioners’ lack of access to CCTV footage. Justice Bagchi assured that the magistrate could secure the footage, and the DCP-led SIT would independently gather evidence. “The Court will give you access; your clients have a right to fair investigation, and we are here to ensure that,” he stated.

What Happens Next

The Delhi Police is now required to constitute the SIT headed by a DCP-rank officer, who will investigate the assault and submit a report to the jurisdictional magistrate. The petitioners have been permitted to approach the Supreme Court again if they remain dissatisfied with the investigation. The bench’s order balances the need for an impartial police probe with the statutory rights of the complainants to directly invoke magisterial scrutiny. Legal observers note that the direction effectively overrules the High Court’s finding that the complaint lacked a cognizable offence, setting a significant precedent for victims of physical assault in protest settings.