Threats and AK-47 Warnings: Delhi HC to Hear PIL Against ACP Manasvi Vashistha
Delhi High Court to hear a PIL seeking action against ACP Manasvi Vashistha and other police personnel for allegedly threatening advocates.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) this Friday that seeks strict action against ACP Manasvi Vashistha and several other Delhi Police personnel. The petition alleges a pattern of intimidation, threats, and the use of derogatory language directed at advocates during a volatile dispute between the legal community and police officials.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, who have agreed to take up the case on Friday.
Allegations of Intimidation and Misconduct
Filed by advocate Karan Bir Singh, the petition highlights a disturbing trend of alleged misconduct by serving police officers. The core of the plea rests on videos circulating on social media, which purportedly show ACP Manasvi Vashistha making threatening remarks against lawyers.
According to the petition, the ACP is allegedly seen suggesting that advocates who visit police stations in groups could face detention and criminal proceedings. These statements have sparked concerns regarding the professional independence and safety of lawyers performing their duties.
The AK-47 Threat
The PIL does not stop at the ACP's conduct. It also brings to light an alleged video involving Sub-Inspector Vishal Yadav. In the footage, the officer is purportedly heard threatening to use an AK-47 rifle against an advocate if the lawyer were to lay hands on him.
Petitioner Karan Bir Singh argues that if these recordings are genuine, they represent a grave misuse of police authority and amount to criminal intimidation, posing a direct threat to the security of legal practitioners.
Questioning Police Participation in Protests
Beyond the specific threats, the petition raises a legal question regarding the conduct of serving officers. It questions the participation of active police personnel in recent demonstrations and seeks an examination of these actions under the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, as well as applicable service and conduct rules.
The controversy stems from an incident where ACP Vashistha reportedly participated in a protest by Delhi Police personnel outside the force headquarters, following a clash with lawyers. While it has been reported that ACP Vashistha was subsequently suspended for a "violation of discipline," the petitioner contends that mere suspension is insufficient to address the broader allegations of threats and misconduct.
What the Petitioner is Seeking
The PIL names the Union of India, the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), ACP Manasvi Vashistha, and Sub-Inspector Vishal Yadav as respondents. The petitioner has requested the court to provide the following reliefs:
- Protection of Advocates: Directions to safeguard the safety, dignity, and professional independence of lawyers.
- Evidence Preservation: The preservation of original electronic evidence and the removal of social media content containing unlawful threats.
- Independent Probe: A time-bound, independent inquiry into the misconduct of the concerned officials.
- Accountability: Appropriate criminal and departmental action against those found guilty.