Delhi High Court to Hear PIL on Friday Seeking Action Against ACP Manasvi Vashistha Over Alleged Threats to Advocates

Yugcharan News / 04-11-2026

The Delhi High Court will hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Friday seeking action against Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashistha and other Delhi Police personnel over alleged threats, intimidation and derogatory remarks directed at advocates amid the ongoing confrontation between the police and the legal fraternity.

The matter was mentioned for an urgent hearing on November 4 before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma. After hearing the request for urgent listing, the court agreed to take up the matter on Friday.

The petition has been filed by advocate Karan Bir Singh, who has sought judicial intervention to protect the professional independence, dignity and safety of advocates. It raises concerns over the alleged misuse of official authority by serving police personnel and seeks an independent investigation into the statements and conduct attributed to the officers.

The development comes amid escalating tensions between Delhi Police personnel and lawyers following a series of confrontations at Shahdara Police Station. The dispute has already resulted in protests by police personnel, an indefinite strike by lawyers across several district courts and the suspension of ACP Vashistha by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

ACP Manasvi Vashistha and Other Police Officials Named in PIL

The petition names the Union of India, Delhi Police Commissioner, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), ACP Manasvi Vashistha and Sub-Inspector Vishal Yadav as respondents.

According to the plea, videos circulating on social media allegedly show ACP Vashistha making threatening and derogatory statements against advocates. The petition specifically refers to remarks suggesting that lawyers visiting police stations in groups could face detention and criminal proceedings.

The petitioner has argued that such statements, if established, raise serious concerns about criminal intimidation and the use of police authority against members of the legal profession.

The plea also refers to an alleged video involving Sub-Inspector Vishal Yadav. According to the petition, the officer is purportedly seen threatening to fire an AK-47 rifle at an advocate if the latter laid hands on him.

The petitioner has submitted that the alleged statements cannot be viewed merely as individual disagreements between police personnel and lawyers. Instead, they raise questions about the safety of advocates while performing their professional responsibilities and the conduct expected from serving police officials.

The allegations are part of the petition and have not been established by a judicial finding.

Petition Seeks Independent Inquiry and Criminal Proceedings

Advocate Karan Bir Singh has sought directions for an independent and time-bound inquiry into the alleged conduct of the police officials concerned.

The petition also seeks criminal and departmental proceedings against the officers wherever the allegations are found to warrant such action.

One of the key concerns raised in the plea is the alleged participation of serving police personnel in the demonstration outside Delhi Police Headquarters on November 2.

The petitioner has argued that the participation of police officials in the protest requires examination under the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, along with applicable service and conduct rules.

The plea questions whether the conduct of the officers during the demonstration was consistent with the restrictions and responsibilities governing members of the police force.

The petition further argues that the reported suspension of ACP Vashistha does not address the wider allegations involving other police personnel or the need for institutional safeguards to prevent similar incidents.

Removal of Allegedly Threatening Videos Also Sought

Apart from seeking an investigation and action against the officers, the petitioner has requested directions to ensure the safety, dignity and professional independence of advocates.

The plea also seeks the removal of specifically identified social media videos and publications containing allegedly unlawful threats.

However, it requests that the original electronic evidence be preserved before any such material is removed. This aspect of the petition seeks to balance the demand for preventing the circulation of allegedly threatening content with the need to retain evidence for any subsequent investigation or legal proceedings.

The petitioner has argued that preserving the original material would be important for examining the statements attributed to the police personnel and determining the circumstances in which they were made.

The High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on Friday. The court's decision on the issues raised will depend on the proceedings and submissions made before it.

Background: Police-Lawyer Dispute at Shahdara Police Station

The PIL comes against the backdrop of an ongoing dispute between Delhi Police and advocates over the handling of an assault case involving advocate Lalit Bansal.

The controversy reportedly began on October 23 following an altercation over a motorcycle parked outside a salon in Rohtash Nagar, Northeast Delhi. The disagreement allegedly escalated into a confrontation involving a group of lawyers and the salon owner, Sheetal Thakur, who was eight months pregnant.

Later that day, another altercation reportedly took place at the police station when the two groups arrived there. Advocate Lalit Bansal sustained a head injury during the confrontation.

Lawyers subsequently alleged that police personnel had assured them that action would be taken against those accused of assaulting the advocate, but the accused were later allowed to leave.

On October 24, a group of lawyers, including Bansal, visited Shahdara Police Station to question the handling of the case. This led to another confrontation between advocates and police personnel.

The lawyers accused ACP Vashistha of threatening them by displaying his service revolver. They also alleged that the police failed to take appropriate action against those involved in the earlier assault.

Vashistha, however, accused approximately 15 to 20 lawyers of entering the police station, abusing officers and obstructing them from performing their official duties. An FIR was registered against a group of lawyers in connection with the incident.

The competing allegations led to protests by advocates and an indefinite strike across Delhi's district courts.

Police Protest and Suspension of ACP Vashistha

Following the confrontation, ACP Manasvi Vashistha and Arun Kumar, the Station House Officer of Shahdara Police Station, were transferred on October 28.

The transfers did not resolve the dispute. On November 2, around 100 Delhi Police personnel gathered outside Gate No. 1 of the force's headquarters, demanding a meeting with Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar over the developments at Shahdara Police Station.

ACP Vashistha also participated in the demonstration. The protesters alleged that police personnel were facing pressure and intimidation from lawyers while carrying out their duties. They raised demands concerning the treatment of police officers, security at police stations and court complexes, and action against advocates accused of misconduct.

During the demonstration, Vashistha allegedly made derogatory remarks against lawyers, including referring to them as "kaale coat wale gunde", or "goons in black coats".

The remarks triggered further anger among bar associations, which demanded action against the ACP.

The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently suspended Vashistha for what was described as a violation of discipline. The suspension became a significant development in the continuing dispute, although lawyers have argued that further action is required to address the wider allegations.

High Court Proceedings and the Road Ahead

The PIL adds a new legal dimension to the confrontation between Delhi Police and the legal fraternity. While the suspension of ACP Vashistha has addressed one aspect of the controversy, the petition seeks a broader examination of the alleged conduct of multiple police officials.

The Delhi High Court will now consider the matter on Friday. The petition raises questions concerning the professional independence of advocates, the limits of police authority, the conduct of serving officers during demonstrations and the responsibility of authorities to ensure the safety of members of the legal profession.

The court's decision to list the matter for hearing does not amount to a finding on the allegations. The claims made in the petition will have to be examined through the judicial process, with the respondents getting an opportunity to present their positions.

The proceedings could become important in determining whether an independent inquiry or other institutional measures are required to address the allegations.

With police personnel and lawyers continuing to raise concerns about their respective rights and responsibilities, the dispute has moved beyond the original confrontation at Shahdara Police Station. The Friday hearing is expected to bring the competing concerns before the High Court and provide an opportunity for judicial consideration of the issues affecting relations between the police and the legal fraternity in Delhi.