Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking a CBI or other independent agency probe into an alleged assault on advocates inside and outside the Bar Council of India (BCI) premises in late August.

Justice Girish Kathpalia disapproved of the submission that since BCI Chairman Maman Kuma Mishra is a Member of Parliament from the ruling dispensation, the Delhi Police will not act fairly.

"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," the bench observed.

The lawyers had also sought directions to the BCI to preserve and hand over CCTV recordings of its premises pertaining to the relevant period.

Appearing for the lawyers, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the plea sought investigation by the CBI or another independent agency as the Delhi Police falls under the Government and Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of BCI, is a Member of Parliament belonging to the ruling party.

It was argued that the said circumstances gave rise to apprehension of an unfair investigation.

The petitioner lawyers also submitted that despite their complaint, the Delhi Police had not taken action. It was argued that a Magistrate would not be able to direct seizure of the CCTV footage or other investigative steps and was also not empowered to direct a CBI investigation.

Dismissing the plea, the Court said that 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 m.

It added that no case was set up by the petitioners to satisfy the court if the SHO concerned, with whom a complaint about the incident was filed, 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,” the Court said.

It further observed that from the complaints lodged by the petitioners, it appeared that no cognizable offence at all was made out. It also said that in view of Section 174 of 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,” the judge held.

For context, the Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a plea seeking CBI probe into the incident. The Apex Court had granted liberty to the petitioners to appraoch the High Court.

Title: KUNAL YADAV & ORS v. MANAN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS
Click here to read order

Tags: