Delhi High Court: Refuses Suo Motu Action On ACP Manasvi Threats

• The Delhi High Court refused to take suo motu cognisance of alleged threats made by ACP Manasvi Vashishtha against lawyers.
• A Division Bench, including acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, instructed lawyers to file a formal petition.
• Lawyers had claimed ACP Vashishtha used terms like "AK47" and "goons in black coats" in a video.
• The court assured lawyers that their concerns would be looked into once a formal petition was submitted.
• The dispute originated after advocate Lalit Bansal suffered a head injury during an alleged assault on October 23.

By refusing to take suo motu cognisance and instead mandating the submission of a formal petition, the court reinforces the principle that grievances, even those involving alleged threats by an officer like ACP Manasvi Vashishtha, must be formally documented and presented.

The Delhi High Court recently declined to initiate a suo motu case regarding alleged threats made by Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashishtha against legal professionals. This decision came after a group of lawyers approached the court, presenting claims that ACP Vashishtha had been captured on video making derogatory remarks and issuing warnings of severe consequences to "goons in black coats." The lawyers specifically highlighted the use of phrases such as "AK47" and "Kaale coat ke Gunde (goons in black coats)" directed at their fraternity.

Lawyers had directly appealed to the acting Chief Justice, expressing their desire for the court to take independent cognisance of the matter. They conveyed that such an action would provide them with assurance, stating, "You [Acting Chief Justice] are our chief. If you take suo motu cognisance we will be assured." Despite these pleas, the court maintained its position on requiring formal procedural steps.

A Division Bench, comprising acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, instead instructed the lawyers to submit a formal petition outlining their grievances. The bench assured the legal representatives that once a proper petition was filed, the court would ensure its listing and thoroughly examine the issues raised. This directive underscores the judiciary's emphasis on established legal processes, even when serious allegations involving public officials are brought to its attention.

The court provided explicit instructions for the lawyers, stating, "You file a formal petition. We will look into it. We will order its listing. Give a copy to the Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lao. I assure you that we will look into it. You give representation, but also file a formal petition." This detailed guidance clarifies the necessary steps for the lawyers to pursue their complaint against ACP Manasvi Vashishtha through the appropriate channels.

The underlying tension between ACP Manasvi Vashishtha and Delhi lawyers originated following an incident on October 23, when advocate Lalit Bansal reportedly sustained a serious head injury during an alleged assault. This event prompted lawyers to visit the Shahdara police station, where they subsequently raised allegations concerning Vashishtha. The broader context of this confrontation highlights a growing friction between certain segments of the legal community and the Delhi Police.

The lawyers' subsequent appeal to the Delhi High Court for suo motu cognisance reflects the gravity with which they view the alleged threats and the broader implications for their profession. The court's response, while not immediately taking independent action, has set a clear path for how such disputes must be formally addressed within the legal framework.

The ruling by the Delhi High Court, led by acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, serves as a significant reminder of the procedural adherence expected from all parties, including legal professionals, when seeking judicial intervention. By refusing to take suo motu cognisance and instead mandating the submission of a formal petition, the court reinforces the principle that grievances, even those involving alleged threats by an officer like ACP Manasvi Vashishtha, must be formally documented and presented. This decision highlights the court's commitment to due process and structured legal proceedings.

This judicial stance means that lawyers cannot rely on the court to initiate action independently, even in matters concerning the safety and professional integrity of their colleagues. Instead, they must diligently prepare and file a formal petition, providing all necessary details and evidence, to ensure their concerns are properly addressed. This emphasis on a formal petition before the Delhi High Court sets a precedent for how similar future disputes between lawyers and law enforcement might be handled.

This ruling highlights the Delhi High Court's emphasis on procedural adherence, requiring lawyers to file a formal petition rather than expecting suo motu cognisance even in matters of alleged threats against legal professionals. Lawyers should note this procedural requirement when seeking judicial intervention for similar grievances, ensuring proper documentation and filing rather than relying on the court to initiate action independently.

Source: Original reporting via the provided source material.