The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution over the alleged manhandling and detention of lawyers by police near the Supreme Court on October 10, seeking accountability of the officers involved and a review of restrictions affecting access to courts.

The petition alleges that several advocates, including senior advocates, women lawyers and senior citizens, were forcibly placed in police vehicles and taken away without being informed of the grounds for their detention. It states that the SCBA received videos of the incident and that the detained advocates were subsequently released following intervention.

The SCBA has sought a status report detailing the legal basis and duration of the detentions, the officers involved, the use of force, and the instructions issued through the police chain of command.

The petition also challenges the scope and implementation of prohibitory restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging that barricades on roads around the Supreme Court and other courts have obstructed access for lawyers and litigants.

It further raises concerns over the suspension of internet services and closure of the Supreme Court Metro Station, claiming that these measures were taken without consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

The SCBA has sought production of the Section 163 BNSS order, preservation of CCTV and body-camera footage and other relevant records, and directions to ensure reasonable access to courts and advocates' chambers. It has also sought safeguards for lawyers unable to attend court due to the restrictions.

The petition clarifies that the SCBA does not support strikes, boycotts or abstention from court work.

The following prayers were sought in the petition filed by the SCBA:

"a) Issue appropriate writs, orders or directions requiring Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to place on record a status report on the events of 10 October 2026, including the particulars, legal basis and duration of each reported 24 detention, the identity of the officers involved, any force used, relevant instructions and the chain of command;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any this appropriate writ, order or direction directing production of the complete order stated to have been issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with its reasons, territorial extent, duration and operative conditions, and the basis for barricading and restrictions affecting access to courts and nearby areas;

c) Direct the concerned authorities to preserve and, as directed by this Hon'ble Court, place relevant records, CCTV footage, body-camera footage if any, detention records, orders and videos concerning the incident before the Court;

d) Direct a review of the territorial extent and implementation of the said order and barricading, ensuring that restrictions remain limited to what is lawfully necessary and proportionate in the prevailing circumstances;

e) Direct reasonable arrangements, designated access routes and clear instructions to facilitate access by advocates, litigants and other persons with legitimate reasons to attend the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Patiala House Courts, Rouse Avenue Courts, advocates' chambers and affected residential premises, subject to lawful security checks."

The petition was drawn by Adv. Reepak Kansal and filed by AoR Pragya Baghel.

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association has also filed a petition challenging the police actions against lawyers.