Supreme Court has asked lawyers allegedly assaulted during protests against Bar Council of India chairman Manan Mishra to approach the Delhi high court.

The Supreme Court today refused plea by lawyers who were allegedly assaulted during protests against Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Mishra asking them to approach the Delhi high court instead with their petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe and immediate preservation of CCTV footage of the August 20-21 incidents.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that the high court was the appropriate forum as the alleged assaults took place at the BCI office in New Delhi. “It should not appear as if everything must come to this court. You can approach the Delhi high court. They can very well deal with your petition,” the bench told advocate Prashant Bhushan, who mentioned the matter for urgent listing.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan today submitted before a CJI Kant led bench, "This matter concerns some lawyers who were protesting inside the Bar Council of India premises on the 21st. They were beaten up by certain persons claiming to be lawyers. The entire incident has been captured by CCTV cameras installed at the BCI premises....unfortunately, the Bar Council Chairman issued a statement proudly saying that some “legal cockroaches” were protesting there and that their lawyers came, beat them and sent them away. It is a serious incident".

Bhushan further told court that the petitioners were seeking a CBI investigation into the incident and preservation of the CCTV footage. "That is the urgency because the footage may be destroyed. Several matters concerning the Bar Council of India are already pending before this Court. That is why I felt it may be more appropriate to approach this Court. Certainly, the High Court can deal with it. I was only submitting that since Your Lordships are dealing with several matters concerning the BCI, it may be better for this Court to consider it. This is lawlessness being encouraged by the Bar Council Chairman. He is proudly saying that their people beat the protesters and pushed them away. He said that some “legal cockroaches” were protesting there and that they were beaten and sent away," he added.

When Bhushan stressed that lawyers’ right to protest could not be curtailed merely because of their profession, the bench said “The interface on the democratic front can wait in respect of lawyers because law creates grievance redressal for them and gives them a direct voice. They can always bring it before the appropriate forum".

Justice Bagchi further underlined that higher standards are expected of lawyers as officers of the court. “When it comes to the administration of justice, this court has laid down graded response for the officers of the court,” Justice Bagchi said.

Notably, the Supreme Court just yesterday heard a petition challenging the continued occupation of the office of Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) by the same office-bearer for over a decade, alleging that the present five-year tenure notified by the BCI is contrary to the two-year tenure prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules.

It has further directed that the Attorney General for India and Solicitor General be “actively associated” with every policy decision taken by the BCI until its reconstitution through fresh elections.

The bench also made it clear that Mishra’s present continuance as BCI chairman could not be treated as an arrangement extending until 2030, observing that, prima facie, he was continuing only “pro tem” until a freshly constituted BCI elected its office-bearers.

An Article 32 plea raises questions concerning the functioning, democratic accountability, transparency and institutional governance of the BCI, the statutory regulator of the legal profession constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961. The petition challenges a Gazette notification dated April 21, 2025, which records the tenure of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030. According to the petitioner, Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules provides that the Chairman shall hold office for two years or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier.

Mentioning Date: September 3, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Tags: