The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to transfer a court-directed police inquiry from the administrative supervision of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East) Sandeep Lamba, rejecting a plea that sought his removal on the ground of an alleged apprehension of bias following viral videos purportedly showing him slapping a woman during the recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests at Jantar Mantar.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that allegations against a police officer could not, by themselves, justify removing him from supervising an inquiry without due process. The Court said that if the officer had committed any misconduct, he would face consequences in accordance with law, but it could not presume his guilt or deprive him of official responsibilities before any adjudication.
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Delhi Police on advance notice, informed the Court that the inquiry had already been concluded. He submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner’s statement had been recorded and the inquiry report had been forwarded by the Additional DCP to the competent authority for an appropriate decision.
Recording the submission, the Court held that the relief sought had become infructuous since the inquiry had already been completed and dismissed the petition.
Even after the order was dictated, counsel for the petitioner sought to press the matter, contending that subsequent developments involving the officer had created a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermined the fairness of the inquiry. The Court, however, declined to entertain the request.
The Bench observed that merely because an officer was facing allegations in another incident, the Court could not presume that he would act unfairly in every matter entrusted to him. It noted that transferring the inquiry on that basis would effectively amount to holding the officer guilty without a fair trial and would unjustifiably cast aspersions on him. The Court further remarked that the officer was also entitled to the protection of due process and a fair determination of the allegations against him.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged act of slapping a woman protester had created a legitimate apprehension of bias, particularly because the petitioner herself had complained of police excesses. The Court, however, questioned whether such reasoning would imply that the entire Delhi Police machinery should be treated as biased or prevented from performing statutory functions such as registration of First Information Reports (FIRs).
The petition had sought a direction to the Commissioner of Police to withdraw the inquiry from the administrative control of the Additional DCP and entrust it to a Deputy Commissioner of Police posted outside North-East Delhi. According to the petitioner, reports concerning the officer’s alleged conduct during the Jantar Mantar protests, coupled with subsequent administrative action against him, had created a reasonable apprehension that the inquiry would not be impartial. The petitioner clarified that she was not seeking adjudication of those allegations in the present proceedings but argued that a court-directed inquiry must also satisfy the test of institutional fairness and inspire public confidence.
The controversy arose out of an earlier writ petition in which the petitioner alleged that she had been illegally detained at Police Station Jafrabad during the intervening night of March 24 and 25, 2025. Acting on that petition, the High Court had directed the Delhi Police to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
The petitioner subsequently challenged the manner in which the inquiry was being conducted, alleging that it had initially been concluded without recording her statement or examining material aspects of her complaint. After the High Court directed that her statement be recorded before the inquiry was finalised, the petitioner filed the present application seeking transfer of the inquiry from the supervision of the Additional DCP.
In view of the statement made by the Additional Solicitor General that the inquiry had already been completed and the report submitted to the competent authority, the High Court declined to interfere further and dismissed the petition as being infructuous.
