Lawyers across Delhi’s district courts abstained from judicial work on October 27 after the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations called a one-day strike over alleged police intimidation at Shahdara Police Station. The protest followed an assault case involving advocate Lalit Bansal, who the lawyers’ body said suffered a serious head injury.
The committee alleged that ACP Manasvi Vashishta displayed his revolver and intimidated advocates who approached the police station over the handling of the case. It has demanded the suspension of the ACP and the concerned SHO pending an impartial inquiry. Police, however, have registered a separate case against around 15–20 lawyers, accusing them of abusing officers, obstructing official work and misbehaving at the police station.
Assault Case Triggers Dispute
The dispute began with an assault case involving advocate Lalit Bansal. According to the Coordination Committee’s October 26 circular, Bansal sustained a serious head injury and advocate Amulya Ratan was the complainant in the matter. Several lawyers visited Shahdara Police Station on the evening of October 23 seeking action against those allegedly involved.
The committee said the ACP and SHO assured the advocates that the persons named in the case would be arrested. However, the lawyers later learnt that the accused had reportedly not been arrested and had instead been released. The development prompted advocates to return to the police station seeking an explanation over the handling of the case.
Revolver Allegation Emerges
The lawyers’ committee alleged that when advocates subsequently raised concerns at the police station, an incident involving ACP Manasvi Vashishta took place. According to the account placed before the committee, the ACP displayed his revolver and threatened and intimidated the lawyers present. The committee described the allegation as extremely serious and said advocates seeking lawful action should not face intimidation or confrontation.
It subsequently demanded the immediate suspension of both the ACP and the concerned SHO pending an impartial inquiry. The allegation has not been independently established in the reports reviewed for this story and should therefore be treated as an allegation, not a proven incident.
Police File Counter-Case
The police version presents a different account of the October 24 confrontation. According to a complaint filed by ACP Manasvi Vashishth, around 15–20 lawyers allegedly entered the SHO’s room and misbehaved with police personnel after accusing them of accepting a bribe to release the accused in the earlier case.
The complaint alleges that one lawyer attempted to pull the SHO by the hand and that others abused or threatened police officers. The police said the incident was captured on CCTV. A case was registered on October 26 under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to obstructing a public servant, assault or criminal force against a public servant, threatening a public servant and common intention.
Second FIR Deepens Tensions
The lawyers’ committee has also expressed concern over the registration of a second FIR against members of the Bar on October 26. It described the development, along with what it called recurring concerns over alleged “high-handed” conduct by police personnel, as a reason for collective action.
Following an emergency meeting held via video conference on October 26, the committee unanimously resolved that advocates would abstain from judicial work in all Delhi district courts on October 27. The resolution was circulated to the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Delhi Police Commissioner and district judicial authorities, among others.
Inquiry Needed
The dispute now involves competing allegations from two institutions involved in the justice system. The lawyers allege intimidation and misuse of authority by police, while the police complaint alleges that advocates themselves obstructed officers and interfered with official duties.
With CCTV footage, police records, the original assault case and witness accounts potentially relevant to the dispute, an impartial inquiry could help establish what happened and whether anyone acted unlawfully.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Lawyers and police are both essential pillars of the justice system, and neither institution should be above accountability. Allegations of intimidation must be investigated fairly, while allegations of misconduct by lawyers must also be examined without prejudice.
A transparent inquiry based on evidence—not institutional pressure or confrontation—is the best way to protect both the dignity of advocates and public confidence in the police. At a time when trust in institutions matters deeply, can both sides choose dialogue and due process over confrontation to resolve this dispute?
Also Read: From A Bihar Village To Commanding A Ship: Capt. Ritu Kumari’s 16-Year Maritime Journey
