Kunal Yadav & Ors. vs Manan Kumar Mishra & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 18.09.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 21.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010438192026
+ W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026, CRL.M.A. 28622/2026 & CRL.M.A.
28623/2026
KUNAL YADAV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Mr. Anurag
Tiwary and Ms. Anushka Singh,
Advocates
versus
MANAN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State
with SI Vikram and SI Harsh Kumar
Ms. Simran Kumari, Mr. Virat Raj
Mishra and Ms. Pooja, Advocates for
R-2
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Senior
Panel Counsel with Mr. Abhishek
Batra, Mr. Puneet Dhawan,
Ms.Megha Sharma, Mr. Aniruddha
Ghosh, Ms. Kaberi Sharma,
Advocates for R-3 & R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T
1. This petition was earlier listed before coordinate bench of this court
and on recusal by the Hon’ble Judge, it was assigned to this bench for
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 1 of 13 pages
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af396
2c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f
80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.09.21 11:25:14 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
preliminary hearing on 18.09.2026. I heard learned counsel for petitioners
on the issue of maintainability of this petition and reserved the matter for
orders.
2. For ready reference, prayer clauses of this writ petition are extracted
below:
“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the CBI, or such other independent
agency as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, to register an FIR and
conduct an independent investigation into the assault on the
Petitioners and other advocates inside and outside the
premises of the Bar Council of India on the intervening night
of 20/21.08.2026, including the role of Shri Manan Kumar
Mishra, of the officials and staff of the BCI, of the unidentified
assailants, and of the police personnel present at the spot; and
to monitor the said investigation;
B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the Bar Council of India to
forthwith preserve and hand over to the investigating agency,
in original, all CCTV recordings of the premises of the Bar
Council of India for the period from 20.08.2026 to 21.08.2026;
C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the BCI to consider the
Petitioners' Representation dated 20.08.2026 and to decide it
by a reasoned and speaking order;
D. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. For present purposes, the relevant circumstances culled out of the
petition are as follows.
3.1 The petitioners are practicing advocates and respondent no.1 is a
Senior Advocate, working as Chairman of the Bar Council of India
( respondent no.2 ) and is also serving as Member of Parliament. According
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 2 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
Digitally Signed
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:25:02 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
to the petitioners, the office of Chairman of Bar Council of India was being
used by respondent no.1 for his personal political purposes.
3.2 In early August 2026, the graduating batch of NALSAR University of
Law, Hyderabad wrote a letter to their university objecting to the
programme where they had to receive their degrees from the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India in convocation. On 13.08.2026, respondent no.1 purporting
to act on behalf of the Bar Council of India issued a directive to all the State
Bar Councils that no student who obtained law degree from NALSAR in the
year 2026 should be enrolled as an advocate till further orders. That
directive was modified on account of widespread criticism. The Bar Council
of India took a stand that vast majority of students were innocent and had
been instigated by a handful of teachers and outsiders. The Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India also on 14.08.2026 stated in open court that the matter was a
dialogue between him and the students, with no role for Bar Council of India
to play. The respondent no.1 issued public apology to law students, but on
18.08.2026, Bombay Bar Association issued a statement rejecting the
apology tendered by the respondent no.1 and called for his resignation as
Chairman of the Bar Council of India.
3.3 On 14.08.2026, the All India Young Advocates Association gave a
public call for peaceful demonstration outside the office of the Bar Council
of India on 20.08.2026 at 10:00am and this call was circulated across
members of the bar.
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 3 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
Digitally Signed cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:24:51 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
3.4 Accordingly on 20.08.2026, a group of young advocates assembled
peacefully outside the office of the Bar Council of India where already there
was heavy deployment of police and rapid action force. The demonstration
was entirely peaceful. The representatives of the protesting advocates
entered the premises of the Bar Council of India and submitted a detailed
written representation addressed to the senior functionaries of the Bar
Council of India, but no response was received. At about 02:00pm on that
day, about 10-14 advocates including the present petitioners who had
entered the premises of the Bar Council of India to submit their
representation commenced their peaceful sit-in protest inside the premises of
the Bar Council of India. Later in the afternoon, one individual not
associated with the petitioners or the protestors allegedly broke open lock of
gate of the premises. At night, about 01:15am to 01:20am, a group of about
25-30 men, several of them being in the advocates’ attire entered the
premises of the Bar Council of India, which was captured in a video by
some of the petitioners from the first floor. Those men surrounded about 10
advocates who were sitting in protest on the ground floor, and they started
beating, slapping, thrashing and dragging those protesters, so those of the
petitioners who were on first floor, came downstairs but they also were
assaulted and beaten up. The entire incident took place in presence of
number of police officials.
3.5 On the next day, 21.08.2026, the respondent no.1 addressed a
statement to the media, which statement has been quoted in the petition. On
22.08.2026 some of the petitioners submitted a detailed written complaint to
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 4 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.09.21 11:24:42 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
SHO of PS IP Estate and also sent a representation through email to the Bar
Council of India seeking action against the persons involved. On 24.08.2026
also, 26 advocates including the petitioners submitted a representation to the
President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. But no action has been
taken. According to petitioners, the videos of the alleged incident are
available in public domain. Hence, the present petition.
4. As mentioned above, on 18.09.2026, arguments on maintainability of
this petition were heard. For ready reference, those arguments as recorded in
the order dated 18.09.2026 are quoted below:
“1. The petitioners seek mandamus, directing the CBI or any
other independent agency to register FIR and conduct
independent investigation into the assault on the petitioners and
other advocates inside and outside the premises of the Bar
Council of India on the night intervening 20.08.2026 and
21.08.2026. Petitioners also seek mandamus, directing the Bar
Council of India to preserve and hand over to the investigating
agency, all CCTV recordings of the premises of the Bar Council
of India pertaining to the said period. Petitioners also seek
mandamus, directing the Bar Council of India to consider their
representation dated 20.08.2026 and decide it by reasoned and
speaking order.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioners is called upon to
address on maintainability of this writ petition in the light of
availability of alternate efficacious remedy. It is also pointed out
that so far as prayer clause ‘C’ is concerned, prima facie, it
appears that this relief does not fall within the domain of the
criminal court.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has addressed on the above
aspects of maintainability. It is submitted by learned counsel
that the mandamus sought is only against the CBI or any other
independent agency, because Delhi Police falls under the
Government and Mr. Manan Mishra is a Member of Parliament
of the ruling party, so unfairness of investigation is suspected. It
is also submitted that the Delhi Police has not taken any action
on the complaint of the petitioners. Further, it is submitted by
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 5 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
Digitally Signed , cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:24:31 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
learned counsel for petitioners that the court of learned
Magistrate shall not be able to direct seizure of the CCTV
footage or other investigative steps. It is further submitted that
the magistrate is not empowered by law to direct investigation
by the CBI. As regards prayer clause ‘C’, it is contended by
learned counsel for petitioners that since the representation
dated 20.08.2026 is intertwined with the remaining prayers, the
same can be entertained by this Court through the present
criminal writ petition.
4. On maintainability, no other argument has been advanced.
5. Matter is reserved for orders on maintainability.”
5. Thence, the question to be deliberated upon is as to whether writ
jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked for grant of mandamus to
register the complaint and investigate. On this legal issue, it would be
apposite to briefly traverse through the legal position, which is as follows.
5.1 The writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued
by the High Courts for enforcement of not just fundamental rights but for
other matters as well. In view of vast expanse of this prerogative of the High
Courts, evolution of law has settled boundaries within which this jurisdiction
can be legitimately exercised. The jurisdiction to issue writs being
extraordinary and discretionary, as a matter of judicially sanctified self-
imposed restrictions, the power and scope of legitimate issuance of writ of
any kind is well settled through a plethora of judicial pronouncements. One
of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Courts to entertain a writ
petition or refuse to do so is the availability of an alternate efficacious
remedy. Where an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the person
aggrieved, he has to adopt the same, instead of seeking grant of writ.
However, this restriction is subject to four exceptions, namely enforcement
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 6 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
Digitally Signed , cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:24:20 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
of fundamental rights, or curation of violation of principles of natural justice,
or the impugned directive being wholly without jurisdiction, or the subject
legislation is claimed to be ultravires . Where a right is created by a statute
and the remedial procedure also is prescribed by the said statute itself, the
aggrieved person must avail of that procedure prescribed by that law, instead
of knocking at the doors of the High Court for issuance of writ. This
judicially sanctified rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of
policy, convenience and discretion. The logic behind such self-imposed
restrictions on writ jurisdiction is to ensure that the procedure established by
law is not bypassed and the remedial machinery created by the statute is not
made redundant.
5.2 Way back in the year 1964, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal vs Superintendent of Taxes , 1964
SCC OnLine SC 13, held that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised merely
because it is lawful to so; that the very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands
that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed
restrictions; and that ordinarily the High Court will not entertain a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner
has an alternate remedy. This legal principle holds field till date and
reference can be drawn also from the latest judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. , 2026 INSC 442.
6. In the present context, next comes the query as to whether there exists
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 7 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
Digitally Signed
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:24:10 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
on the statute book an alternate efficacious remedy for a person seeking
issuance of mandamus writ for registration of a case and investigation. If so,
the present writ petition has to be rejected.
6.1 In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India &
Others , 2026 SCC Online SC 741, one of the questions framed by the
Supreme Court was as to whether the existing framework of criminal
procedural law provides adequate and efficacious remedies to address the
grievances raised by the petitioners, particularly in cases of non-registration
of a First Information Report. After elaborate discussion of legal position,
the Supreme Court held thus:
“98.3. On the third issue, we hold that the procedural framework under
the CrPC (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides a
comprehensive and multi-tiered mechanism to address grievances
arising from non-registration of FIRs. The remedies available under
Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 of the CrPC, coupled with the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate, constitute an efficacious
statutory scheme.
….
….
164. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, our conclusions are
summarised as follows:-
…
…
V. The statutory framework under the CrPC (now the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), provides a comprehensive and layered
mechanism to set the criminal law in motion. The duty of the police to
register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory, as
settled in Lalita Kumari (supra).
VI. In cases of non-registration of FIR, the CrPC/BNSS provide
efficacious remedies. An aggrieved person may approach the
Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or corresponding
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 8 of 13 pages
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962
c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f
80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:24:00 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
Signature Not Verified
Section 173(4) of BNSS and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC (corresponding Section 175 of
BNSS) or proceed by way of a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC
(corresponding Section 223 of BNSS). These remedies constitute a
complete statutory architecture.
VII. 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.
VIII. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
of CrPC or corresponding Section 175 of BNSS is of wide amplitude and
includes supervisory oversight over the investigation at appropriate
stages. This power is intended to ensure that the investigation is
conducted in a fair, impartial, and lawful manner, and may be exercised
simultaneously during the stage of investigation, where the material on
record discloses any deficiency, inaction, or taint in the investigative
process.” (emphasis supplied)
6.2 Similarly, in the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra), the Supreme
Court, after framing and discussing the question of law as to whether under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction could be given to the
State authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken
recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law, quashed the impugned
First Information Report that had been registered by the concerned police
station in compliance of the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay. The Supreme Court held thus:
“7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious
statutory remedies were available. If a person has a grievance that his
FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered,
proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not
ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 9 of 13 pages
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.09.21 11:23:48 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
Signature Not Verified
in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the
urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise.
8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973) provides a structured sequential mechanism for
initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates
that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is
first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR
is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to
register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent
of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the
Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS.
9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the complainant
Company initially approached the Land Record Authority, by way of
complaints dated 13.06.2025 and 09.07.2025, with copies thereof being
sent to the police authority. However, it did not avail any of the statutory
remedies provided under BNSS and instead directly invoked the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court, inter alia, seeking directions for
registration of FIR. In our considered view, such a recourse, in the
first instance, is contrary to the settled principles of law. Particularly in
the absence of imminent danger of violation of life or liberty of an
individual. Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances.
10. It is not the case of the complainant Company that it had approached
the concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate prior to filing the
writ petition, nor has any material been placed on record to show that
such remedies were unavailable or inefficacious. Entertaining a writ
petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High
Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the
statutory scheme in its entirety . This is impermissible, save and except in
special circumstances as mentioned in Radha Krishan Industries (supra),
which are conspicuously absent in the present case.
11. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely
because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a
statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and
efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking
constitutional jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir
Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the complainant
Company, has not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available
under BNSS. There is, therefore, no foundation to invoke the
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 10 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:23:37 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that
efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists. Hence, at this stage,
we find the instant writ petition to be premature, and, therefore, not fit to
be entertained.” (emphasis supplied)
7. Falling back to the present case, according to the petitioners, the
authorities with which they lodged complaint about the alleged incident are
the Bar Council of India, the SHO of PS IP Estate, and the President of the
Delhi High Court Bar Association. As regards the alleged incident, the
complaint to the SHO, PS IP Estate was lodged on 22.08.2026. No case has
been set up by the petitioners to satisfy this court if the SHO concerned is
guilty of negligence or inaction. Admittedly, till date no complaint has been
lodged by the petitioners before the concerned DCP ( equivalent in Delhi to
the Superintendent of Police ), what to say of approaching the concerned
magistrate under Section 223 BNSS. Not even whisper has been made in the
petition as to why these are not considered efficacious remedies.
8. Then, one also has to ascertain if any cognizable offence is made out
from the complaints filed by the petitioners before different authorities.
Whether it is Delhi Police or CBI or any other agency, in order to investigate
the case, first the complaint has to be registered as FIR (First Information
Report) in the case of Delhi Police or RC (Regular Case) in the case of CBI.
For that, the precondition is that the complaint must spell out a cognizable
offence. From the said complaints lodged by the petitioners, it appears that
no cognizable offence at all is made out. For, the only allegation is that the
alleged aggressors ( none of whom was allegedly armed with any weapon )
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 11 of 13 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:23:27 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
beat, slapped, thrashed and dragged the petitioners. That, at the most
constitutes offence of causing hurt, defined under Section 114 BNS, which is
a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, in view of Section 174 BNSS it is
only the concerned magistrate, who can act; and rather, in view of sub-
section (2) of Section 174 BNSS, no police officer shall investigate such
offence. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the
magisterial court will not be able to direct seizure of the CCTV footages is
fallacious, to say the least, in view of the scope of provisions under Chapter
XVI of BNSS. Even otherwise, petitioners themselves have pleaded that
those videos are in public domain.
9. To conclude, the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy
available to them in the form of filing a complaint case in the court of the
concerned magistrate under Section 223 BNSS, so I do not find it a fit case
to issue mandamus to any authority to register the case and investigate.
9.1 Coming to the prayer clause C of the petition, the petitioners seek
mandamus to the Bar Council of India to consider and decide their
representation dated 20.08.2026. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that
the said representation is intertwined with the remaining prayers, so it can be
granted. Since no case qua the other prayers is made out, there is no
occasion to grant prayer C as well. Even otherwise, in my view the demands
raised in the said representation viz. resignation of respondent no.1,
accountability of the BCI members, welfare of advocates, legal education
reforms, and consideration of no-confidence motion have no bearing at all
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 12 of 13 pages
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:22:24 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15
Signature Not Verified
with the prayer for investigation into the alleged incident.
9.2 But before parting with this case, I must place on record a respectful
disapproval of the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners
that since respondent no.1 is a Member of Parliament from the ruling
dispensation, the Delhi Police will not act fairly, but the CBI will do so. No
basis has been submitted to buttress this apprehension. In the absence of any
specific basis, it is not fair to tarnish the entire Delhi Police force in this
manner, especially when petitioners’ own case fails to make out a
cognizable offence. Besides, the apprehension argument must also fail
because even CBI against whom mandamus to register case and investigate
has been sought is a government body. One should resist the temptation to
discredit any government organisation by such general, sweeping and
baseless allegations. For, it generates counterproductive cynicism and
distrust in the mind of common man against the entire ecosystem.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.21 11:22:06 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/ ry
W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026 Page 13 of 13 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:21.09.2026
11:36:15