Writ Jurisdiction Under Art. 226 Cannot Bypass Statutory Remedies Under BNSS For Non-Registration Of FIR: Delhi High Court

"The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available." Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated September 21, 2026, dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR and an independent investigation by the CBI, holding that the petitioners failed to exhaust the comprehensive statutory framework provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

A bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia emphasized that the extraordinary power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a substitute for the multi-tiered remedial mechanism established by law for criminal grievances.

Exhaustion Of Statutory Remedies

The petitioners, a group of advocates, had approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the CBI to register an FIR into an alleged assault occurring at the Bar Council of India premises. The petitioners contended that since the respondent was a Member of Parliament belonging to the ruling party, they harboured suspicions regarding the impartiality of the Delhi Police. They argued that the High Court’s intervention was necessary to secure CCTV evidence and ensure a fair investigation, as they alleged the Magistrate lacked the necessary powers.

Court Rejects Bypass Of Procedural Law

The court rejected these contentions, observing that the legislative scheme of the BNSS creates a "complete statutory architecture" for setting the criminal law in motion. Justice Kathpalia noted that the petitioners had not even approached the jurisdictional DCP under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, nor had they moved the Magistrate under Section 175 of the BNSS, which are the prescribed legal avenues for addressing police inaction.

"The jurisdiction to issue writs being extraordinary and discretionary, as a matter of judicially sanctified self-imposed restrictions, the power and scope of legitimate issuance of writ of any kind is well settled through a plethora of judicial pronouncements."

No Cognizable Offence Made Out

Upon examining the allegations, the court further observed that the incident, described as an assault involving pushing and slapping, at best constituted the offence of 'causing hurt,' which is a non-cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Consequently, the court noted that under Section 174 of the BNSS, police officers are barred from investigating such offences without an order from the Magistrate. The court termed the argument that a Magistrate could not order the seizure of CCTV footage as "fallacious," citing the broad powers available to the judiciary under Chapter XVI of the BNSS.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Of The Magistrate

The court highlighted that the supervisory role of the Magistrate is not merely mechanical but of wide amplitude, designed to ensure that investigations are conducted in a fair and lawful manner. By failing to move the Magistrate, the petitioners attempted to bypass this statutory oversight, which the court found impermissible in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or imminent danger to life or liberty that would warrant immediate constitutional intervention.

"The statutory framework under the BNSS provides a comprehensive and layered mechanism to set the criminal law in motion. The duty of the police to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory, as settled in Lalita Kumari."

Repudiation Of Baseless Allegations Against Police

Addressing the petitioners' sweeping allegations against the Delhi Police, Justice Kathpalia expressed strong disapproval of the argument that the police would inevitably act with bias simply because a respondent held political office. The court cautioned against the tendency to discredit government organizations through baseless, generalized assertions, noting that such rhetoric only serves to generate counterproductive cynicism in the public mind. Finding the petition premature and not maintainable, the court dismissed the matter, leaving the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Date of Decision: 21 September 2026