An SCBA Article 32 plea, filed over the alleged detention of lawyers near the Supreme Court on October 10, asks the Court for a status report on what happened.
New Delhi: Alleging manhandling and detention of advocates by police near the Court on October 10, the Supreme Court Bar Association has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It seeks a status report, production of the complete Section 163 BNSS order and the basis for the barricades, and preservation of CCTV, body-camera and other footage [Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Others].
Advocate Reepak Kansal drew the petition and Advocate-on-Record Pragya Baghel filed it. Which bench will hear it, and when, is not yet known.
What the SCBA says happened
According to the SCBA, several advocates, among them senior advocates, women lawyers and senior citizens, were forcibly put into police vehicles near the Court on October 10 and taken away without being told the grounds. It says it has received videos of the incident. It further alleges that barricades under Section 163 of the BNSS blocked access for lawyers and litigants, and that internet suspension and closure of the Supreme Court Metro Station took place without consulting the Chief Justice of India. These are the petitioner’s allegations and have not been tested by any court.
What the petition asks for
First, a status report on the events of October 10: the detentions, their legal basis and duration, the officers involved, the force used and the chain of command. Second, a writ directing production of the Section 163 order along with its reasons, territorial scope, duration and conditions, and a review of its scope so that restrictions stay lawful, necessary and proportionate.
The SCBA also wants designated access routes and clear instructions for lawyers, litigants and others with legitimate reasons to reach the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, the Patiala House and Rouse Avenue courts, chambers and affected residences, subject to security checks, together with safeguards for lawyers who could not attend court because of the restrictions. The Association states that it does not support strikes, boycotts or abstention from court work.
Where the matter stands
The petition puts the bar’s institutional voice behind the dispute over policing around the Court. It asks the Court to test the legal basis of the detentions and of the Section 163 restrictions against records produced by the authorities. The respondents’ response is awaited and the Court has made no finding. A separate petition by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association is also before the Court.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Others (writ petition under Article 32)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Filing: Not stated; reported October 12, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Reepak Kansal (drafted); Advocate-on-Record Pragya Baghel (filed)