Delhi High Court: In a writ petition arising out of suo motu cognizance taken by the Division Bench of this Court in relation to a reported incident concerning a practising advocate, which was perceived to have serious implications for the security of lawyers and the dignity and propriety of court proceedings, a 3-Judge Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., V. Kameswar Rao and Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, JJ., noting the “larger ramification and consequences” of the incident issued immediate protective, investigative, and corrective directions for lawyers’ safety and court security.
In the instant matter, The Division Bench, taking note of the apprehensions expressed regarding the incident and the personal safety of the concerned advocate, referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Before the Larger Bench, all counsels, in unison, expressed grave concern and submitted that such an incident, if it had occurred, “not only threatens security of the individual lawyers practising in the Courts, but also erodes the dignity and propriety of the proceedings of the Courts.”
The Court observed that the reported incident had “larger ramification and consequences”, not merely from the standpoint of criminal law but also in relation to the misconduct of advocates and institutional court security. The Court noted that the order of the Division Bench reflected apprehensions about the personal safety of the advocate concerned, which warranted immediate protective measures.
Accordingly, the Court issued the following directions —
-
The President, Delhi Bar Association (Tis Hazari Courts), the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, and the Bar Council of Delhi were directed to be impleaded as party respondents.
-
FIRs arising out of the rival complaints were directed to be registered under appropriate provisions of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the investigation was directed to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, under the direct supervision of the DCP concerned.
-
The Principal District & Sessions Judge concerned was requested to submit a report on the alleged incident, after making inquiries from all concerned including the Presiding Officer of the court, within 24 hours through the Registrar General.
-
The advocate who had expressed apprehension regarding his safety was directed to be provided “adequate round the clock security”, subject to review of threat perception after 10 days.
-
The Bar Council of Delhi was directed to take cognizance of the incident under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, conduct an inquiry, and submit a report to the Court.
-
The Commissioner of Police, Delhi was directed to take stock of the security situation in all District Courts, including Tis Hazari Courts, and to enhance security arrangements in consultation with the respective Principal District & Sessions Judges within 24 hours.
-
The DCP and the Investigating Officer were directed to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e., 24-02-2026 at 4:00 PM, along with the case diaries.
[Court on its Own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(C) No. 1917 of 2026, Decided on 09-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) GNCTD with Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Adv. with DCP Raja Banthia (through VC) and Insp. Banwari Lal, SHO PS Subzi Mandi in person.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG/Chairman (Special Committee BCD) with Mr. T.Singhdev, Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Advs. Ms. Anu Bagai, Nominated Counsel for DHC with Ms. Aanchal Pundir, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent