Delhi High Court Refuses Suo Motu Action Against ACP Manasvi Vashishtha Over Alleged Threats to Lawyers

The Delhi High Court on November 3 declined to take suo motu cognizance of alleged threatening and derogatory remarks made by suspended Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashishtha against lawyers. The court asked the advocates to submit a formal petition along with supporting material before it considers the allegations.

The development comes amid an escalating dispute between Delhi Police personnel and the legal fraternity following a confrontation at Shahdara Police Station on October 23.

Why Did Lawyers Approach the Delhi High Court?

A group of lawyers raised the matter before a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma.The advocates alleged that threatening remarks were made against members of the legal fraternity during a police personnel protest outside Delhi Police Headquarters on November 2. The alleged remarks included references to "Kaale coat wale gunde" and an AK-47.

The lawyers urged the court to intervene, arguing that such statements were inappropriate and threatening. However, the bench declined to initiate proceedings on its own and asked them to file a formal petition. The court assured the advocates that the matter would be examined once the petition was submitted.

Why Was ACP Manasvi Vashishtha Suspended?

On November 2, around 500 Delhi Police personnel gathered outside Police Headquarters to protest against the transfer of ACP Vashishtha and Shahdara Station House Officer Inspector Arun Kumar.

The transfers followed a confrontation at Shahdara Police Station on October 23, during which advocate Lalit Bansal reportedly sustained a serious head injury. Lawyers subsequently alleged that ACP Vashishtha displayed his service revolver and threatened advocates who questioned the police action.

The incident triggered an indefinite strike by Delhi district court lawyers. The strike was called off on October 28 after the two officers were transferred. On November 3, the Ministry of Home Affairs suspended Vashishtha with immediate effect on disciplinary grounds, according to media reports.

What Happens Next?

The High Court's decision does not amount to a clean chit for the ACP. It has simply asked the lawyers to follow the formal petition process. Meanwhile, the controversy has raised broader questions about police accountability, lawyers' safety and the relationship between law enforcement personnel and the legal fraternity. The allegations against the ACP remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings. The next significant development will be whether the lawyers file a formal petition and what action follows.