The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on October 11, 2026, challenging police action against lawyers during ongoing protests in Delhi. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the petition during a special Sunday sitting. The filing raised concerns about alleged manhandling of advocates and injuries inflicted by law enforcement personnel.
The petition came before the court on a day marked by multiple challenges to police conduct during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Beyond SCAORA's Article 32 petition, the bench heard a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleging violation of the court's October 9 order against a complete shutdown of public transport, and a habeas corpus petition by Rajya Sabha MP Menaka Guruswamy challenging indiscriminate detentions of individuals by Delhi Police. Three separate petitions converged on a single day, reflecting the scale of concerns regarding police conduct.
SCAORA's petition specifically focused on the protection of lawyers' constitutional rights to practice their profession and participate in legal proceedings without state interference. The association contended that police action against advocates during the protests—including alleged manhandling and physical injury—violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Several advocates were allegedly assaulted by police personnel. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, presenting arguments before the bench, specifically raised allegations of assault and detention of advocates. The petition sought to establish that members of the legal profession deserve particular protection when engaged in their professional duties or exercising their right to peaceful protest.
The Supreme Court's engagement with the petition reflects the judiciary's established role in protecting the independence of the legal profession. Indian courts have long recognized that the functioning of the justice system depends on lawyers being able to work without fear of state harassment or violence. The constitutional right to practice law, recognized under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, extends protection not only to the practice itself but also to the reasonable exercise of ancillary rights, including participation in public discourse and peaceful protest.
During the same hearing, the bench addressed broader concerns about police conduct during the protests. The contempt petition alleged that 45 Metro stations remained closed and train services were cancelled despite the Supreme Court's October 9 order against a complete shutdown of public transport. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there was zero reduction in Delhi Metro services on October 10, stating that 271 trains were inducted into service, strictly adhering to the standard Saturday schedule. This submission contradicted allegations in the contempt petition.
The habeas corpus petition raised concerns about indiscriminate detentions during the protests. Advocate NK Goswami separately filed a public interest litigation challenging the suspension of digital communication services in Delhi, seeking disclosure of the original order and the reasons for the suspension. These petitions collectively presented the court with questions about the limits of police authority during civil unrest and the constitutional safeguards applicable even when public order is threatened.
The detention of CJP leaders provided a concrete example of police action during the protests. Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka were detained for nearly 24 hours after landing in Delhi. An Executive Magistrate at Delhi Cantt. Police Station released them on the morning of October 11, 2026, on a bail bond of ₹50,000, with conditions to maintain peace and good behavior for one year. The detention raised questions about the grounds and duration of preventive arrest, matters that fell within the scope of the habeas corpus petition before the court.
Congress National President Mallikarjun Kharge announced on October 11 that Congress leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, would meet the Chief Justice of India on October 12 between 4 PM and 5 PM to apprise the CJI of their concerns. This announcement indicated that political parties viewed the court as a forum for addressing grievances about police conduct during the protests. The CJP's demonstrations against the Chief Election Commissioner had triggered a response from law enforcement that multiple petitioners believed crossed constitutional boundaries.
SCAORA's Article 32 petition specifically targeted the protection of lawyers' rights, a matter distinct from but overlapping with the broader questions of police conduct and detention raised in other petitions. The association's standing to file such a petition derives from its role as the representative body of advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. By filing under Article 32, SCAORA invoked the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights, a power the Constitution grants to the court when rights are allegedly violated by state action.
The allegations of manhandling and injury to lawyers raised questions about proportionality in police response and the special duty of law enforcement to recognize the constitutional role of the legal profession. Police action that impedes lawyers' function or injures advocates performing their duties strikes at the heart of judicial independence and the rule of law.
The bench's expression of intent to restore faith in the institution, as noted during the hearing, suggested that the court recognized the severity of the concerns raised. The accumulation of petitions—on transport shutdown, detention, digital services suspension, and police action against lawyers—presented a comprehensive challenge to police conduct during the protests. Each petition targeted a specific aspect of state action, but collectively they questioned whether the response to the CJP protests had respected constitutional limits.
As the petition proceeded, the court would need to examine the evidence of police action against lawyers, determine whether such action violated their fundamental rights, and consider appropriate remedies. The outcome would have implications not only for the immediate situation but also for the principles governing police conduct during future protests. The involvement of SCAORA ensured that the legal profession's perspective on protecting its members' constitutional rights would be formally presented to the court.
The special Sunday sitting itself demonstrated the court's responsiveness to urgent constitutional questions arising from the protests. By convening on a weekend to hear multiple petitions, the bench signaled that the allegations required immediate judicial attention. The next steps in SCAORA's petition would likely involve hearing arguments from the state authorities, examining evidence of police conduct, and determining whether interim or final relief was warranted to protect lawyers' constitutional rights during the ongoing situation in Delhi.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.