Delhi High Court rejects CBI probe into BCI assault, cites police remedy

The court ruled that the petition was not maintainable because an alternate efficacious remedy (filing a complaint with the police) was available and the petitioners had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to bypass the standard police investigation process.

Who it concerns: Petitioners: Kunal Yadav and other practicing advocates; Respondents: Manan Kumar Mishra (Chairman, Bar Council of India, and MP), Bar Council of India, and other officials; Authority: Delhi High Court (Justice Girish Kathpalia).

What the document says

• The court declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the CBI or any other independent agency to register an FIR and conduct an independent investigation into the alleged assault on the night of 20/21.08.2026.
• The court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to direct registration of a complaint or investigation when an alternate efficacious remedy is available.
• The court noted that the petitioners' argument that Delhi Police might be biased because the BCI Chairman is a ruling-party MP was not sufficient to bypass the standard legal procedure.
• The court observed that prayer clause 'C' (directing the BCI to decide a representation) does not fall within the domain of the criminal court.

Also in the document

• The petition alleged that a group of 25-30 men, some in advocate attire, assaulted 10-14 advocates sitting in protest inside the BCI premises in the presence of police officials.
• The petitioners claimed that the BCI Chairman had previously issued a directive blocking the enrollment of NALSAR University graduates, which led to the protest.
• The petitioners submitted complaints to the SHO of PS IP Estate and the Delhi High Court Bar Association, but stated no action was taken.
• The judgment was reserved on 18.09.2026 and pronounced on 21.09.2026.