Delhi High Court To Decide Maintainability Of Plea For CBI Probe Into Recent Assault On Lawyers At BCI Premises
The Delhi High Court this week reserved its order on the maintainability of 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 was hearing a plea filed by various lawyers seeking directions for registration of an FIR and an independent investigation into...
The Delhi High Court this week reserved its order on the maintainability of 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 was hearing a plea filed by various lawyers seeking directions for registration of an FIR and an independent investigation into the alleged incident.
The lawyers have also sought directions to the BCI to preserve and hand over CCTV recordings of its premises pertaining to the relevant period.
At the outset, the Court asked the petitioners to address the maintainability of the petition in view of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy.
The Court also observed that one of the reliefs sought by them, prima facie, appeared to fall outside the domain of a criminal court.
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.
They thus seek a direction to the BCI to consider their representation dated August 20 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. They contended that the relief was intertwined with the other prayers and could therefore be considered by the High Court in the criminal writ petition.
After hearing submissions on maintainability, the Court reserved orders on the issue.
Title: KUNAL YADAV & ORS v. MANAN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS