New Delhi, Sep 21 The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a plea by a group of lawyers seeking a CBI probe into their alleged assault during a protest to demand the resignation of Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, saying it was not maintainable.
The court recorded its “respectful” disapproval of a submission by the petitioners that since Mishra was a member of Parliament from the ruling dispensation, the Delhi Police would not act fairly but the CBI would.
“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 cognisable offence.
“Besides, the apprehension argument must also fail because even CBI against whom mandamus to register a 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,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.
The high court said the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available to them in the form of filing a complaint case in the court of the magistrate concerned under Section 223 BNSS and it does not find it a fit case to issue mandamus to any authority to register the case and investigate.
The petitioners, represented through advocate Prashant Bhushan, sought a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency to register an FIR and conduct an independent investigation into the alleged assault on them and other advocates inside and outside the premises of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on the intervening night of August 20-21.
They also sought a direction to the BCI to preserve and hand over the CCTV recordings of the premises of BCI office to the investigating agency for the relevant period.
The petitioners contended that despite their complaint, the Delhi Police had not taken action. They 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.
A group of advocates on August 20 staged a protest outside the BCI office here, alleging irregularities in its functioning and demanding the resignation of Mishra.
The demonstration saw members of the legal fraternity raising several demands, including the implementation of an Advocates Protection Act, provision of insurance coverage for all advocates, and regular and transparent inspections of law colleges.
The protest was called by the All India Young Advocates Association and supported by the Cockroach Janta Party.
Mishra had earlier apologised to law students after facing criticism over a now-withdrawn order to state bar councils not to enrol any of the current batch of graduating NALSAR students as advocates.
The controversy began after a section of students of NALSAR University of Law wrote to the vice chancellor, registrar and professors of the institution, opposing any proposal to invite CJI Surya Kant as chief guest to the varsity's convocation.
In the first circular, Mishra said it was examining allegations regarding a campaign against the CJI's participation in the university's convocation and had sought a report identifying those responsible.
The decision was reversed within hours following criticism from members of the legal fraternity. A modified order said the "vast majority" of the students were innocent and should not be made to suffer for the alleged misconduct of a few.
