The Delhi High Court sought a detailed report on the alleged assault of a lawyer inside Tis Hazari courts, involving rival counsel and hired attackers. A bench directed police action and asked the District Judge to conduct an inquiry.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, requested a report regarding the alleged assault on a lawyer by his opposing counsel and hired thugs within a courtroom at Delhi’s Tis Hazari courts.
A Bench composed of the three most senior judges, including Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justices V Kameswar Rao, and Nitin Sambre, issued the order.
The Court stated,
“The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) is present in the proceedings. He has stated that the FIRs are being registered and assures that all appropriate measures for investigation shall be taken. We request the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge to submit a report into the incident after making inquiries from all concerned, including the presiding officer of the court,”
The proceedings stemmed from a suo motu case that was urgently brought forward after the assaulted lawyer presented a representation, which followed directions from the Supreme Court.
Earlier in the day, the incident had been mentioned in the Supreme Court before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who expressed serious concern about the situation.
CJI Kant remarked,
“This kind of Gunda raj is not acceptable to us. That means it is a failure of rule of law,”
He encouraged the lawyer to submit a representation to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
As a result, the incident was brought to the attention of the High Court Chief Justice, who instructed the lawyer to file a brief petition. This led to the matter being taken up suo motu and heard urgently at 4 PM.
During the hearing, CJ Upadhyaya shared his concern regarding the incident.
He inquired.
“A lawyer is beaten and heckled. According to reports, the gate of the courtroom was bolted… What about the conduct of the lawyers?”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, who heads a committee responsible for the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) suggested,
“If it’s a lawyer versus lawyer scuffle in the court, then it is a violation of the conduct rules … It may be referred to BCD’s disciplinary committee,”
The Court recorded that the BCD would take notice of the issue and initiate appropriate action against the errant lawyer. Regarding the criminal investigation, the Delhi government’s standing counsel assured that a first information report (FIR) was being registered.
The DCP was also present via video conference, stating,
“We have received complaints from both sides. MLC is being done; we will be registering the FIR. Based on CCTV footage, etc., if anything else needs to be done, we will do that.”
CJ Upadhyaya questioned,
“What about improving security in courts?” to which the DCP responded, “We will meet with the District Judge and see how security can be improved.”
The Court then asked about the safety of the lawyer who brought the matter to light. The DCP indicated that the lawyer had not requested any security. As a result, the Court ordered that security be provided to the lawyer who reported the incident.
CJ Upadhyay stated,
“We are directing you to provide him security round the clock, at least until we receive a report from you and the district judge,”
The Court’s subsequent order noted,
“The order dated February 9 reflects that he (the lawyer who complained of the assault) had expressed certain apprehensions about his safety. Accordingly, we direct DCP North to provide him round-the-clock security, which will be subject to review of the threat perception conducted after 10 days.”
In addressing the DCP, the Court emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation.
The Court directed,
“Mr. DCP, please investigate the matter without being pressurized from any corner whatsoever. In an absolutely independent manner so we can unearth the truth and act upon it accordingly,”
The order concluded by recognizing the broader implications of the incident, with all counsel present voicing concerns that such occurrences not only endanger individual lawyers but also undermine the dignity and propriety of court proceedings.
The President of the Tis Hazari Bar Association, the Commissioner of Delhi Police, and the DCP North (Delhi Police) were added as parties/respondents to the case. The Court also took note of the police’s commitment to conducting a sincere investigation, registering an FIR invoking appropriate criminal law sections, and submitting a report to the Court.
The Court added before adjourning the matter until February 24,
“The investigation of the FIRs shall be conducted by the ACP, under the direct supervision of the DCP concerned,”
Alongside ASG Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit represented the Union of India.