Delhi High Court: Rejects CBI Probe for Manan Mishra Protest Assault

• The Delhi High Court rejected a plea for a CBI probe into an alleged assault on lawyers protesting against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.
• Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled the petition non-maintainable, citing the petitioners' failure to first approach the jurisdictional DCP and magistrate.
• The court dismissed claims that Delhi Police would be biased due to Mishra's MP status, finding no specific evidence to support these general allegations.
• The ruling emphasizes the necessity of following established procedural hierarchies before invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
• The judgment cautions against discrediting government organizations with baseless accusations, highlighting the risk of fostering public distrust.

The court found no specific basis to substantiate these apprehensions, noting that it was unfair to tarnish the entire Delhi Police force with such general allegations, especially when the petitioners' own case did not clearly establish a cognizable offense.

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into an alleged assault on lawyers. The incident, which occurred on the intervening night of August 20-21, 2026, involved advocates protesting against Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at the BCI premises. The court's decision effectively means that the plea for a direct CBI probe into the Manan Kumar Mishra protest assault has been rejected.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the case of Kunal Yadav & Ors v. Manan Kumar Mishra & Anr, declared the petition non-maintainable. This ruling underscores the judiciary's emphasis on adhering to established legal protocols before escalating matters to higher judicial bodies. The petitioners had sought a CBI probe into the BCI lawyers attack, bypassing initial investigative channels.

A primary reason for the Delhi High Court's rejection was the petitioners' failure to follow the prescribed procedural hierarchy for lodging complaints. The court explicitly stated that the lawyers should have first approached the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and subsequently the concerned magistrate, rather than directly invoking the Delhi High Court's writ jurisdiction. This highlights a crucial aspect of the procedural hierarchy police complaint system, which mandates exhausting local remedies before seeking intervention from higher courts.

The petitioners had also argued that Delhi Police would not conduct a fair investigation due to Manan Kumar Mishra's status as a sitting Member of Parliament from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), suggesting a CBI probe was necessary. However, Justice Kathpalia expressed "respectful disapproval" of this assertion. The court found no specific basis to substantiate these apprehensions, noting that it was unfair to tarnish the entire Delhi Police force with such general allegations, especially when the petitioners' own case did not clearly establish a cognizable offense. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the CBI, against which a mandamus for investigation was sought, is also a government body, rendering the bias argument inconsistent.

The High Court's ruling sends a clear message regarding the importance of specific evidence over general accusations when challenging the impartiality of government agencies. The court cautioned against the temptation to discredit any government organization through "general, sweeping and baseless allegations," warning that such actions generate "counterproductive cynicism and distrust in the mind of common people."

This decision reinforces the principle that legal processes must be followed diligently, and direct appeals to the High Court for a CBI probe are not a substitute for exhausting preliminary investigative avenues. For lawyers and litigants, the judgment clarifies that mere allegations of political influence, without concrete evidence, are insufficient to bypass the established procedural hierarchy, impacting future strategies for public interest litigation or criminal complaints that seek to circumvent local law enforcement.

This ruling clarifies the procedural steps required before directly approaching the High Court for a CBI probe, emphasizing the need to exhaust remedies with the jurisdictional police and magistrate first. Lawyers should note that general allegations of bias against government agencies without specific evidence will not suffice to bypass established legal processes, impacting strategy for similar public interest litigation or criminal complaints.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench