Supreme Court orders SIT probe into alleged assault on lawyers outside BCI office

The Supreme Court has directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to set up a Special Investigation Team, headed by an officer of Deputy Commissioner of Police rank, to investigate allegations that a group of lawyers was assaulted outside the Bar Council of India premises in August.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana made clear on Monday that the inquiry must proceed independently, without being influenced by earlier remarks made by the Delhi High Court.

What happened outside the Bar Council office

The dispute originates from a demonstration staged outside the Bar Council of India (BCI) headquarters on the intervening night of 20 and 21 August 2026. A group of lawyers had gathered to seek the resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, following a controversial circular regarding law graduates from NALSAR University that was subsequently withdrawn.

According to the complaint submitted on 22 August to the Station House Officer at IP Estate police station, an unidentified group of 20 to 30 people arrived at roughly 1:15 am and assaulted the demonstrators. The complainants alleged offences including unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy, while also requesting the preservation of CCTV footage from the scene.

When no First Information Report was registered following the complaint, the lawyers approached the Delhi High Court seeking an independent inquiry, including a possible probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation. On 21 September, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the complaint did not disclose a cognisable offence and noting that the petitioners had not first approached the local magistrate or senior police leadership.

Supreme Court affirms statutory duty of police

Setting aside that reasoning, the Supreme Court stressed that allegations of physical violence cannot be brushed aside without scrutiny.

"Beating is certainly a cognizable offence. There is no need for the court to observe otherwise. It is absolutely wrong. Without examining critical papers and other material, to say that this is a non-cognizable offence," Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the proceedings. He noted that conducting an investigation remains the statutory duty of the police force.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that a Central Bureau of Investigation probe or court-appointed oversight was necessary because Mishra is a member of the ruling party. However, the bench pushed back against attempts to bypass institutional frameworks or unfairly impugn administrative bodies without solid ground. Justice Bagchi pointed out during arguments that the BCI Chairman was not present at the site during the incident, cautioning against conflating individuals with the actual assailants.

What happens next in the investigation

Rather than transferring the inquiry away from regular statutory authorities, the apex court reinforced established institutional procedures. It instructed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure a fair and comprehensive inquiry led by a senior DCP-rank officer.

The findings of the Special Investigation Team must be submitted directly to the jurisdictional magistrate, who retains the statutory authority under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to take cognizance and direct further steps. The top court also gave the petitioners liberty to approach the magistrate with a private complaint and return to the apex court if they encounter legitimate procedural grievances during the probe.