New Delhi, July 28: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking the removal of a senior Delhi Police officer from an inquiry into an alleged illegal detention case, holding that allegations of excessive force during a separate protest could not, by themselves, establish bias or justify his replacement.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that while citizens have a constitutional right to protest, that right does not extend to actions that threaten public institutions or public order. The court also said a police officer’s reputation should not be prejudiced solely on the basis of allegations arising from another incident without due process.
The petition was filed by 68-year-old Zarnigar Fatima, who had alleged that she was illegally detained at Jafrabad Police Station during the night of March 24–25, 2025. A court-directed inquiry into her complaint was being conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Sandeep Lamba.Fatima sought the transfer of the inquiry to another officer after a video from the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ march against the alleged NEET paper leak surfaced, showing Lamba allegedly using force against a woman protester.
She argued that the incident had undermined her confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the inquiry.Her counsel contended that justice must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair, and submitted that an independent officer should be appointed to maintain public confidence in the proceedings.
Rejecting the plea, the court held that allegations connected to a separate incident could not automatically lead to the conclusion that the officer would be biased in another matter. It observed that transferring the inquiry on such grounds would effectively amount to prejudging the officer without giving him an opportunity to present his side.
The court further remarked that law enforcement personnel often operate under difficult circumstances while managing large gatherings near sensitive government establishments. It said that even if questions were raised about the extent of force used during crowd control, those issues should be examined through the appropriate legal and administrative processes rather than being treated as proof of bias in unrelated proceedings.
During the hearing, counsel representing the authorities informed the court that the inquiry into Fatima’s complaint had already been completed after recording her statement and that the report had been forwarded to the competent authority for further action.
Taking note of the submissions and the status of the inquiry, the High Court dismissed the petition, leaving the matter to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
