Delhi lawyers’ strike: What triggered the protest against Shahdara police, and why are advocates demanding action?

A dispute over an alleged assault on a lawyer has escalated into a confrontation between Delhi’s legal community and the police. On Tuesday, October 27, advocates across the capital’s district courts abstained from judicial work, protesting the alleged intimidation of lawyers at Shahdara police station and the registration of a separate FIR against members of the Bar.

The Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi called the one-day protest after an emergency meeting on October 26. It has demanded the immediate suspension of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashishta and the station house officer (SHO) concerned, pending an impartial inquiry. The Indian Express reported on Tuesday that lawyers were observing the abstention across Delhi’s district courts.

How did the Shahdara police dispute begin?

The dispute traces back to an alleged assault in which advocate Lalit Bansal sustained a serious head injury. Advocate Amulya Ratan is the complainant in the case, according to the committee’s circular.

The committee said several lawyers visited Shahdara police station on the evening of October 23 to seek action against those accused of assaulting Bansal. According to its account, the ACP and SHO assured the advocates that the accused would be arrested. However, the lawyers later learnt that the accused had not been arrested and had reportedly been released. The committee said this prompted advocates to return to the police station to question how the case was being handled.

Why are lawyers accusing the ACP of intimidation?

The most serious allegation concerns what allegedly happened when the advocates raised their grievances. According to the committee’s October 26 circular, ACP Vashishta displayed her revolver and threatened and intimidated the lawyers present.

The committee described the incident as a matter of serious concern and argued that advocates should be able to pursue complaints without facing intimidation. It subsequently demanded the suspension of both the ACP and the SHO until an impartial inquiry is completed.

These allegations have not, however, been established by an independent inquiry. The police’s account of the confrontation differs from the version presented by the lawyers.

What does the police FIR against lawyers say?

A report by PTI said police had registered a separate case against 15–20 lawyers for allegedly abusing police personnel, misbehaving with officers and obstructing official work at Shahdara police station.

According to the complaint filed by ACP Vashishta, the confrontation occurred on October 24. The complaint alleges that a group of lawyers entered the SHO’s room, accused police personnel of accepting a bribe to release the accused in the earlier assault case, and created a disturbance. It further alleges that one lawyer threatened the SHO and attempted to pull him by the hand.

The police complaint also says the incident was captured on CCTV cameras at the station. The case was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to obstructing public servants, using criminal force against them, threatening public servants and common intention.

What happens next after the Delhi district court strike?

The Coordination Committee has asked authorities to suspend the ACP and SHO while an impartial investigation examines the competing accounts. Its circular was sent to senior judicial and police authorities, including the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and the Delhi Police Commissioner.

The immediate impact is disruption to judicial work across the capital’s district courts. The larger issue is whether the confrontation can be resolved through an independent investigation that establishes what happened at Shahdara police station and how the original assault complaint was handled.

For now, the lawyers’ protest and the police case against advocates have placed two questions at the centre of the dispute: whether the original complaint received an appropriate response, and whether the subsequent confrontation involved misconduct by either side. Both require evidence and due process, rather than competing allegations alone.

(With inputs from ANI)