Delhi District Court Lawyers Strike on October 27: ACP Suspension Demanded Over Alleged Threats

Delhi District Court Lawyers Strike on October 27 Over Alleged Police Threats; ACP Suspension Sought NEW DELHI, October 27, 2026: Lawyers across Delhi’s district courts are abstaining from judicial work on Tuesday following allegations of intimidation involving police officials at Shahdara Police Station. The Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi has called for a one-day protest and demanded the immediate suspension of Assistant Commissioner of Police Manasvi Vashishta and the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), pending an impartial inquiry. The decision was taken at an emergency meeting held through video conference on October 26. The committee’s resolution reflects growing discontent among advocates over the alleged treatment of members of the Bar and the handling of a case involving an injured lawyer. What Triggered the Delhi Lawyers’ Strike? According to the committee’s circular, the controversy originated from an incident in which advocate Lalit Bansal allegedly sustained a serious head injury following an assault. Advocate Amulya Ratan is identified as the complainant in the matter, which is linked to an FIR registered 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 its account, the ACP and SHO assured the advocates that the persons named in the case would be arrested. However, the advocates subsequently learnt that the persons concerned had reportedly not been arrested and had instead been released. This development prompted further representations to the police regarding the handling of the matter. Allegations of Threats Against Advocates The dispute intensified when advocates allegedly returned to the police station to raise concerns and seek accountability. According to the account recorded in the committee’s circular, ACP Manasvi Vashishta allegedly displayed his revolver and threatened or intimidated the advocates present. These allegations have not, by themselves, established misconduct by the police officials. An impartial inquiry would be necessary to establish the facts and determine responsibility. The committee has also expressed concern over the registration of another FIR against members of the Bar, further intensifying the dispute between the advocates and the police. Bar Committee Demands Suspension of ACP and SHO Following its deliberations, the Coordination Committee demanded the immediate suspension of ACP Manasvi Vashishta and the concerned SHO pending an impartial inquiry into the allegations. The committee maintained that advocates seeking lawful action in a criminal matter must be able to approach the police without fear of intimidation. It also called upon members of the legal fraternity to maintain unity and solidarity during the protest. Why the Protest Matters The developments highlight the importance of maintaining professional relations between the police and the legal fraternity while ensuring that complaints of alleged misconduct are addressed through fair and transparent procedures. Advocates play an important role in helping citizens access the justice system. At the same time, allegations against public officials must be examined objectively, with both accountability and procedural fairness guiding the process. The immediate focus will be on the response of the police leadership and other competent authorities to the committee’s demands. The outcome of any inquiry, rather than allegations alone, should determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. What Happens Next? The lawyers’ one-day abstention from judicial work on October 27 is intended to press for action against the concerned officials and an impartial investigation. The authorities’ response may prove decisive in determining whether the dispute is resolved or further protest follows. The situation also serves as a reminder that disagreements between law enforcement officials and advocates require institutional dialogue, transparency and adherence to due process. Any allegations of threats or professional intimidation should be investigated promptly and fairly, without prejudging the guilt of any individual.