The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the CBI or another independent agency to register an FIR and conduct an investigation into the alleged assault of advocates at the Bar Council of India (BCI) premises on the intervening night of August 20 and 21, 2026.
Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and therefore the case was not fit for exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. The judgment was pronounced on September 21, 2026.
The petition was filed by practicing advocates seeking, among other reliefs, a direction to the CBI or another independent agency to register an FIR and investigate the alleged assault on advocates inside and outside the BCI premises. The petitioners also sought preservation and handing over of CCTV footage from the BCI premises for August 20–21, 2026, and a direction to the BCI to consider their representation dated August 20.
According to the petition, young advocates had assembled outside the BCI office on August 20 following a call for a peaceful demonstration. The petitioners alleged that a group of around 25–30 men entered the BCI premises at about 1:15–1:20 AM on August 21, surrounded advocates who were sitting in protest and assaulted them. The petitioners alleged that the incident occurred in the presence of police officials.
The petitioners had subsequently submitted a complaint to the SHO of PS IP Estate on August 22 and representations to the BCI and Delhi High Court Bar Association. They contended that no action had been taken and sought an independent investigation, including by the CBI.
The Court examined whether its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked for directing registration of a case and investigation when statutory remedies were available. Referring to the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an alternative efficacious remedy exists, the Court noted that such self-imposed restrictions are intended to prevent the statutory remedial mechanism from being bypassed.
The Court noted that the BNSS provides a structured mechanism for dealing with non-registration of FIRs, including recourse to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter the Magistrate.
In the present case, the Court observed that although the petitioners had approached the SHO, they had not approached the concerned DCP, nor had they approached the Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS. The petition also did not explain why these statutory remedies would not be efficacious.
The Court further considered whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. It observed that, based on the complaints placed before it, the allegation was that the persons involved had beaten, slapped, thrashed and dragged the petitioners, without allegedly being armed with weapons. The Court held that this, at the most, constituted the offence of causing hurt under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which it treated as a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court held that Section 174 BNSS applied and that the concerned Magistrate was the appropriate forum to act.
The Court also rejected the petitioners’ contention that a Magistrate would not be able to direct seizure of CCTV footage or undertake other investigative steps, observing that the petitioners themselves had stated that videos of the incident were available in the public domain.
Accordingly, Justice Kathpalia held that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy by filing a complaint case before the concerned Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS, and declined to issue a mandamus directing registration and investigation.
The Court also declined to direct the BCI to consider the petitioners’ representation seeking, among other things, resignation of the BCI Chairman, accountability of BCI members, advocate welfare measures, legal education reforms and consideration of a no-confidence motion, observing that these demands had no bearing on the prayer seeking investigation into the alleged incident. The petition was consequently dismissed as not maintainable.
