Delhi High Court Refuses to Shift Police Inquiry, Says Allegations Alone Cannot Prove Bias

July 28, 2026 : The Delhi High Court has refused to transfer a court-monitored police inquiry from the administrative supervision of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East) Sandeep Lamba, holding that mere allegations against an officer cannot be treated as proof of bias or misconduct without due process.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that a police officer cannot be deprived of official responsibilities solely because allegations have been made against him in another matter. The Court emphasized that if any misconduct is ultimately established, the officer would face legal consequences, but the judiciary cannot presume guilt before a fair adjudication.

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Delhi Police, informed the Court that the inquiry had already been completed. The petitioner’s statement had been recorded in compliance with the Court’s earlier directions, and the inquiry report had already been forwarded by the Additional DCP to the competent authority for an appropriate decision. In view of this development, the Court held that the relief sought had become infructuous and dismissed the petition.

Even after the order was dictated, the petitioner’s counsel argued that subsequent allegations against the officer, including viral videos purportedly showing him slapping a woman during the recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests at Jantar Mantar, had created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court, however, declined to reconsider its decision, observing that allegations arising from a separate incident could not automatically lead to the conclusion that the officer would act unfairly in every matter assigned to him. Such an approach, the Court said, would effectively amount to declaring the officer guilty without a fair trial.

The Bench also questioned whether accepting the petitioner’s argument would mean treating the entire Delhi Police as biased whenever allegations are made against any officer, thereby affecting routine statutory functions such as the registration of FIRs.

The petitioner had sought directions to the Commissioner of Police to transfer the inquiry to a Deputy Commissioner of Police posted outside North-East Delhi. She argued that reports regarding the officer’s alleged conduct during the Jantar Mantar protests, along with subsequent administrative developments, had raised legitimate concerns about the fairness of the inquiry. While clarifying that she was not seeking a judicial finding on those allegations, the petitioner contended that a court-directed inquiry should also inspire public confidence and satisfy the principles of institutional fairness.

The dispute originated from an earlier writ petition in which the petitioner alleged that she had been illegally detained at Police Station Jafrabad during the night of March 24 and 25, 2025. Acting on that petition, the High Court had ordered the Delhi Police to conduct an inquiry. The petitioner later challenged the inquiry process, alleging that it had initially been concluded without recording her statement or examining key aspects of her complaint. After the Court directed the police to record her statement before finalising the inquiry, she filed the present application seeking transfer of the inquiry.

Since the Delhi Police informed the Court that the inquiry had already been completed and the report submitted to the competent authority, the High Court found no reason to interfere further and dismissed the plea as infructuous.