Court Emphasizes Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Holds Petition Premature and Non-Maintainable
In a significant judgment delivered on September 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of advocates including Kunal Yadav, seeking a mandamus direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any independent agency to register a First Information Report (FIR) and conduct an independent investigation into an alleged assault that occurred inside the Bar Council of India (BCI) premises on the intervening night of August 20-21, 2026.
The petitioners alleged that a group of men, some dressed as advocates, forcibly entered the BCI premises and physically assaulted them during a peaceful protest. They contended that the police personnel present failed to act and that the police investigation was biased due to political influence, as the respondent Manan Kumar Mishra, the BCI Chairman and a Member of Parliament from the ruling party, was allegedly involved. The petitioners also sought directions for the preservation and seizure of CCTV footage from the BCI premises and requested the court to direct the BCI to consider their representation demanding accountability and reforms.
However, the Court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and discretionary and should not be invoked when efficacious statutory remedies are available. It noted that the petitioners had neither approached the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) nor the Magistrate before filing the writ petition, nor had they explained why these remedies were inadequate.
The Court referred extensively to the recent Supreme Court decisions, including Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2026) and Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra (2026), which reaffirmed that the procedural framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code), provides a comprehensive and multi-tiered mechanism for grievances related to non-registration of FIRs and investigation. These provisions include approaching the Superintendent of Police, followed by the Magistrate's supervisory jurisdiction, and filing complaints before the Magistrate under relevant BNSS sections.
Further, the Court examined the nature of the alleged offence and found that the assault described amounted at best to the offence of causing hurt under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is a non-cognizable offence. Under Section 174 BNSS, such offences are to be dealt with by the Magistrate, and police officers do not have authority to investigate without Magistrate sanction. Consequently, the Court found no justification for directing police or CBI to register an FIR or investigate.
Regarding the prayer to preserve and seize CCTV footage, the Court rejected the argument that the Magistrate cannot direct such investigative steps, observing that Chapter XVI of BNSS empowers the Magistrate to take appropriate actions. Moreover, the petitioners themselves admitted that videos were already in the public domain.
On the petitioners' demand for mandamus to the Bar Council of India to consider their representation concerning resignation, accountability, and reforms, the Court observed that these demands were unrelated to the criminal incident and hence did not warrant judicial intervention in this writ petition.
The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioners' general allegation that the Delhi Police would act unfairly due to political influence while the CBI would be impartial. It cautioned against making sweeping and baseless assertions that undermine public trust in government institutions.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, reiterating the principle that constitutional writ jurisdiction must not bypass the statutory procedures established under BNSS, especially when alternative efficacious remedies exist.
This decision underscores the judiciary's emphasis on adherence to procedural safeguards and exhaustion of statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction, reinforcing the layered mechanism provided under the BNSS for addressing complaints relating to FIR registration and investigation.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition seeking direction to register FIR/CBI investigation is not maintainable when efficacious alternative remedies under BNSS are available; where allegations disclose at best non-cognizable offence of hurt, remedy lies before Magistrate and not through writ of mandamus.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 Constitution of India, Sections 114 BNS 2023, Sections 173, 175, 174, 223 BNSS 2023, Sections 156, 200 CrPC (erstwhile), Chapter XVI BNSS 2023
Kunal Yadav v. Manan Kumar Mishra, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982392
