Lawyers across Delhi’s district courts have extended their strike indefinitely, demanding the suspension of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashishtha and the station house officer (SHO) of Shahdara police station over allegations of threats and intimidation. The dispute arose after advocates sought action in an assault case involving fellow lawyer Lalit Bansal, who sustained a serious head injury.
The lawyers alleged that Vashishtha displayed his revolver and threatened them during a confrontation at the police station. The police, however, have accused 15–20 advocates of misconduct and obstructing official work, registering a separate First Information Report (FIR) against them.
The Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi has announced an indefinite abstention from judicial work until its demands are met. A march from Patiala House Courts to Delhi Police Headquarters is scheduled for October 29 at noon. As of October 28, the lawyers’ allegations are being verified, according to a senior police officer, while the competing accounts of the confrontation remain under scrutiny.
Alleged Police Threats
The dispute centres on events that unfolded on October 23 and 24, 2026, following an alleged assault that left advocate Lalit Bansal with a serious head injury. According to a circular issued by the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi, advocate Amulya Ratan filed a complaint in connection with the assault, leading to the registration of an FIR at Shahdara police station.
The committee stated that several advocates visited the police station on the evening of October 23 to seek appropriate legal action against those allegedly involved. According to the lawyers’ account, ACP Manasvi Vashishtha and the SHO assured them that the individuals concerned, who were reportedly present at the police station, would be arrested.
However, on October 24, the advocates allegedly learnt that the individuals had not been arrested and had reportedly been released. The lawyers subsequently returned to the police station to raise concerns about the handling of the case and seek accountability.
The committee alleged that during the ensuing confrontation, Vashishtha displayed his revolver and threatened and intimidated the advocates present. It described the allegations as serious, particularly because the lawyers had approached the police seeking action in a case involving a serious physical injury.
The committee has demanded the immediate suspension of the ACP, the concerned SHO and other police personnel found responsible, pending an impartial inquiry and appropriate legal action. It has maintained that advocates must be able to pursue legitimate complaints without fear of intimidation.
The allegations against the ACP have not been independently established. A senior police officer told Hindustan Times that the claim that the ACP pointed his service pistol at the lawyers was being investigated. The officer also said that the claims made by the lawyers were being verified.
Police File Countercase
The police have presented a different account of the confrontation. According to a senior police officer quoted by Hindustan Times, the dispute originated in an altercation between two groups in a residential neighbourhood in Shahdara over a motorcycle-related incident. The groups, comprising a lawyer, a local resident and their respective supporters, subsequently arrived at Shahdara police station, where the confrontation allegedly escalated into a fight involving members of both groups.
The officer said that one lawyer sustained a head injury and that a case relating to an alleged attempt to commit culpable homicide was registered on the injured lawyer’s complaint. The lawyers subsequently sought the immediate arrest of the other group members, leading to a further confrontation over the police response.
The police have also registered an FIR against approximately 15–20 advocates over their alleged conduct at the police station. In his complaint, ACP Vashishtha alleged that the lawyers abused and intimidated him and the SHO, obstructed police personnel from performing their official duties and engaged in misconduct during the confrontation. The complaint further alleged that an advocate grabbed the SHO’s hand and attempted to pull him.
The police have reportedly stated that CCTV footage from the police station captured the incident. The allegations against the advocates will also need to be examined as part of the investigation.
Meanwhile, the lawyers’ indefinite strike began on October 27 after the Coordination Committee held an emergency meeting and decided to escalate its protest. The committee has called on advocates to abstain from judicial work until its demands are met. Several bar associations, including the New Delhi Bar Association, the Saket Bar Association and the Central Delhi District Bar Association, have supported the call.
On October 28, advocates were also asked to assemble outside their respective district courts to raise awareness about their concerns. The New Delhi Bar Association has announced a peaceful march from Patiala House Courts to Delhi Police Headquarters on October 29 at noon.
The continuing strike has disrupted judicial work, with advocates staying away from court proceedings. The standoff has raised concerns about the effect on litigants who depend on timely hearings and access to legal representation.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The confrontation between Delhi’s lawyers and police highlights the importance of accountability, restraint and mutual respect among institutions responsible for upholding the law. Allegations that a police officer threatened advocates must be investigated impartially, while accusations of misconduct against lawyers must also be examined fairly.
Neither institutional authority nor professional status should place anyone above the law. At the same time, an indefinite strike can affect ordinary citizens awaiting hearings, bail decisions and other urgent legal remedies. Their concerns deserve equal consideration. A transparent inquiry, preservation of CCTV footage, cooperation between the police and bar associations, and constructive dialogue could help establish the facts and prevent further escalation.
Authorities should ensure that anyone found responsible faces appropriate action, while both sides exercise restraint and avoid actions that could undermine public confidence in the justice system. How can the police and the legal fraternity resolve this dispute while ensuring accountability, protecting professional dignity and minimising the impact on ordinary citizens seeking justice?
Also Read: Delhi Traders Seek 20-Minute Meeting With Rahul Gandhi, Urge Postponement Of INDIA Bloc Rally
