The current face-off between Delhi Police and lawyers did not begin with a direct confrontation. Its roots lie in an alleged assault involving Sheetal Thakur, who runs a salon in Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, and her family. A group, led by a district court advocate Amulya Ratan, is accused of assaulting Sheetal and her husband outside her salon. The dispute later reached Shahdara police station, where another confrontation occurred between lawyers and police personnel.

In the days since, the dispute has snowballed into a standoff between Delhi Police and the city’s lawyers. Police registered an FIR against advocates for allegedly assaulting and threatening the SHO inside Shahdara police station. District court lawyers went on strike, an ACP and an SHO were transferred, police personnel protested outside Police Headquarters, and the ACP has now been suspended. The two sides – lawyers and the Delhi Police – have also agreed on a ‘coordination’ mechanism. Through it all, Sheetal said, her complaint has not resulted in an FIR against the people she accused.

The complainant’s account

Recalling the incident that took place around 11 am on October 23, Sheetal said that Vishnu, the brother-in-law of advocate Amulya Ratan, had parked his motorcycle outside her salon. When her husband asked him to move the bike, Vishnu allegedly responded by saying that he would teach him a lesson on how to speak to lawyers.

The matter apparently settled down at the time. However, Sheetal alleged that around 4 pm, Vishnu, Amulya and four to five other people returned and started a fight outside her salon. She alleged that they assaulted her and her husband.

Sheetal then called the police helpline 112 and informed the police, and also called her sister and brother-in-law to the spot. The family subsequently went to Shahdara police station, where they lodged a complaint at the police's direction.

According to Sheetal, the group of lawyers also reached the police station, where other lawyers joined them. She alleged that they misbehaved with the family and police personnel inside the station. She claimed CCTV cameras recorded the entire confrontation and that the footage would show who did what, but the police have not shown her the footage.

Subodh Jain, a journalist with Bharat Express, shared a one-minute video from inside the police station on social media. Newslaundry has not been able to independently verify the video’s contents. During the scuffle inside the police station involving Sheetal’s brother-in-law, Vinay Bhati, advocate Lalit Bansal apparently sustained a head injury.

Newslaundry reached out to Amulya Ratan for his response to why he went back to the area on the evening of October 23. He said, “I had gone to the shop of someone I know. Sheetal’s shop is in the basement, while the shop of the person I know is on the upper floor. I had gone to his shop when the other party (her husband and brother-in-law) came there and assaulted us. We then called the police helpline (100).”

Two FIRs, but no case on her complaint

Police have registered two separate FIRs in connection with the incidents, one against the advocates under Sections 221, 132, 224 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and another that Sheetal says targets her family. The latter, registered on the complaint of advocate Amulya Ratan, cites “unknown” persons involved in the October 23 incident under Sections 110, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, as Amulya did not know their names. Sheetal said she lodged her complaint earlier that evening, and the FIR on Amulya’s complaint was registered at 11:51 pm. 

Sheetal alleged that despite being a complainant in the assault incident, her family’s concerns have not been addressed, and instead an FIR has been filed against her family members. She said she has repeatedly visited the police station, but to no avail.

A senior Delhi Police official told Newslaundry on the condition of anonymity that an inquiry is currently underway, after which a case will be registered. “This is a very sensitive issue, so we cannot say much about it. We are conducting an inquiry at the moment. A case will be registered after that,” they said.

How the dispute turned into a police-lawyers confrontation

The incident soon sparked a dispute between Delhi Police and the legal fraternity.

According to lawyers, Bansal sustained a serious head injury during the October 23 confrontation inside the police station with Sheetal’s brother-in-law, Vinay Bhati. They alleged that the police assured them that Bhati and Sheetal’s husband would be arrested for the alleged assault outside the salon. However, when an advocate visited Shahdara police station on October 24 to obtain a copy of the FIR, they found that the police had not arrested them.

Vijay Bishnoi, secretary of the Rouse Avenue Court Bar Association, told the media that an emergency meeting was called after lawyers learnt that an FIR had been registered against some of their members at Shahdara police station.

Speaking on October 27, Bishnoi alleged that when lawyers questioned Manasvi Vashishta, ACP Gandhi Nagar, and Inspector Arun Kumar, SHO at Shahdara police station, about why Bhati and Sheetal’s husband had been let go, ACP Vashishta allegedly brandished his revolver and threatened them. He also alleged that the police let them go after accepting a bribe of Rs 5 lakh. Newslaundry reached out to ACP Vashishta for comment on these allegations, but he did not respond to our calls.

Police register FIR against advocates

Meanwhile, the police presented a different account of the October 24 confrontation. Police registered an FIR at Shahdara police station on October 25 on a complaint filed by ACP Vashishta.

According to the complaint, around 15–20 advocates entered the SHO's office at approximately 2.30 pm on October 24 and began abusing and threatening the SHO and other police personnel. The complaint names advocate Naveer Dabas, honorary secretary of the Karkardooma Bar Association, and advocates Vishal Sharma and Vivek Pandey. It alleges that Vishal Sharma caught hold of the SHO’s hand and attempted to pull him. The complaint further states that the advocates threatened to beat the SHO inside the police station. The FIR was registered under Sections 221, 132, 224 and 3(5) of the BNS. Inspector Arun Kumar, then the SHO at Shahdara police station, confirmed to Newslaundry that the events took place as described in the complaint.

The lawyers, however, maintained that they had approached the police station to seek accountability over why Bhati and Sheetal’s husband had been let go and alleged that the ACP threatened them by brandishing his revolver.

Strike, transfers and a coordination mechanism

On October 27, lawyers across Delhi’s district courts went on strike and stayed away from work, demanding action against ACP Vashishta and Inspector Arun Kumar. Lawyers also protested outside the Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Range's office.

ACP Vashishta and Inspector Arun Kumar were transferred the following day. While ACP Vashishta was moved to the Special Police Unit for Women and Children (SPUWAC), Inspector Arun Kumar was transferred to the Security Unit.

After the transfer, the lawyers called off their strike. 

On October 30, senior Delhi Police officers and representatives of the Bar Council of Delhi, the Coordination Committee of All District Bar Associations and various district court bar associations held a joint meeting. 

They issued a statement detailing the decisions on October 31. Both sides agreed to establish a Joint Coordination Committee comprising representatives of Delhi Police and the legal fraternity to address grievances and facilitate dialogue. Other decisions included appointing nodal officers at district and Police Headquarters levels, informing the concerned Bar Association, as far as practicable, whenever an FIR is registered against a practising advocate, and exchanging updated directories of office-bearers and members. However, the agreement did not end the tensions.

Police personnel protest outside Police Headquarters

On November 2, approximately 150 police personnel gathered outside Police Headquarters in protest. DCP (New Delhi) Sachin Sharma reached the spot and attempted to persuade the personnel to end the demonstration and maintain discipline. He also asked some of them to accompany him inside the headquarters, but the protesters refused, insisting on meeting the Police Commissioner. They demanded a Sampark Sabha, an open interaction, with the Commissioner to raise their grievances.

A delegation of police personnel subsequently met Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and submitted five demands. These included reinstating the two transferred officers, taking action against lawyers involved in the Shahdara incident and registering FIRs against lawyers accused of indulging in hooliganism. The Commissioner assured them that their concerns would be addressed and appropriate action taken to maintain the morale of the force.

ACP Vashishta, who joined the protest, described it as an “organic call”. After a separate meeting with Joint Commissioner of Police Nupur Prasad, he said they discussed several demands, including rolling back the transfer orders.

Addressing the media gathered at the protest site, Vashishta said, “We have taken a stand because it is necessary to raise our voice against the hooliganism that the police are facing and the security problems arising inside police stations. Some people are engaging in hooliganism while disguising themselves, and they are enemies not only of us but of society as a whole.” 

However, on November 3, a day after the protest, the Ministry of Home Affairs suspended Vashishta with immediate effect. The suspension order cited contemplated departmental proceedings under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. On November 4, Inspector Arun Kumar was transferred again, this time from the Security Unit to the Delhi Police Special Cell’s Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) Branch. 

A history of police-lawyer confrontations

The latest confrontation is not the first time tensions between the Delhi Police and the legal fraternity have spilt onto the streets. 

In January 1988, when Kiran Bedi was serving as DCP (North), lawyers objected to a colleague being produced before a magistrate in handcuffs. On January 21, a police lathi-charge outside Bedi’s office at Tis Hazari Court left several lawyers injured. The lawyers demanded her suspension and went on strike, and the dispute eventually became the subject of a judicial inquiry. 

In November 2019, clashes between lawyers and police personnel at Tis Hazari Court led to a massive protest on November 5, when thousands of Delhi Police personnel gathered outside the Police Headquarters. They demanded action against lawyers accused of attacking police personnel, and the protest also reflected dissatisfaction among junior-ranking personnel with the police leadership. 

The Shahdara controversy has once again brought the relationship between the police force and the legal fraternity under scrutiny. In the midst of these tensions, however, the original complainant Sheetal Thakur said she is still waiting for action on her complaint and access to the police station’s CCTV footage. As the dispute has grown into a confrontation involving lawyers, police personnel and senior officers, the question remains: what happened to the complaint that started it all?

We reached out to Shahdara DCP Rajendra Prasad Meena for comment. He said it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage. “Everyone is making their own personal statements. What can I say about it?” he told Newslaundry.

If you’re reading this report, you’re not seeing a single advertisement. That’s because Newslaundry powers ad-free journalism that’s truly in public interest. Support our work and subscribe today.