ACP Who Led Delhi Police Protest Suspended for 'Violation Of Discipline'
ACP Manasvi Vashishta suspended after leading protest outside Delhi Police headquarters.
advertisement
Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashishta was suspended on 3 November 2026, a day after leading a protest outside the Delhi Police headquarters. The protest was triggered by the transfer of ACP Vashishta and Station House Officer Arun Kumar following a confrontation with lawyers at Shahdara police station. The incident originated from an altercation on 23 October 2026, which escalated into a broader dispute between police personnel and members of the legal fraternity.
According to The Hindu, ACP Vashishta was suspended for “violation of discipline” after joining around 100 police personnel in a demonstration outside the headquarters. The protestors demanded a meeting with Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar to address concerns arising from the recent altercation with lawyers and the subsequent transfers of Vashishta and Kumar.
As reported by The Indian Express, the protest began with approximately 100 personnel and grew to around 500 by the time a delegation met senior officers. The personnel expressed apprehension about possible disciplinary action for participating in the demonstration and raised issues regarding the treatment of police in courts and the need for a grievance redressal mechanism.
The sequence of events leading to the protest started with a parking dispute outside a salon in Rohtash Nagar, which escalated into a physical altercation involving lawyers and the salon owner. Further details indicated that the incident resulted in complaints from both sides, with allegations of assault and misbehaviour at the Shahdara police station.
As highlighted by Hindustan Times, ACP Vashishta led the protest to demand a meeting with the police commissioner and called for the establishment of a standard operating procedure to handle confrontations involving lawyers. He stated, “Our demands are clear. We need to meet CP sir. There needs to be an SOP to deal with such matters. If this happens to us, how will we fight to save the people of the city?”
“Our demands are clear. We need to meet CP sir. There needs to be an SOP to deal with such matters. If this happens to us, how will we fight to save the people of the city?” — ACP Manasvi Vashishta
Coverage revealed that the protest lasted over 10 hours, with police personnel submitting five demands, including the investigation of an FIR registered on Vashishta’s complaint against lawyers and the creation of a grievance redressal committee. The protest was described as the first of its kind since a similar demonstration in 2019.
The underlying dispute involved allegations from lawyers that ACP Vashishta and SHO Arun Kumar threatened advocates who visited the police station regarding the assault case of advocate Lalit Bansal. Following reports, the Delhi High Court declined to take suo motu cognisance of the ACP’s alleged derogatory remarks, instead asking lawyers to file a formal petition for action.
In response to the incident, the Central Delhi court bar association demanded criminal proceedings and an independent inquiry against ACP Vashishta. Reporting indicated that the association called for the withdrawal of the officer’s firearm and a time-bound investigation, stating that derogatory remarks against advocates were “wholly unacceptable and cannot be condoned under any circumstances.”
“The dignity of the legal profession and the institutional relationship between the Bar and the police must be preserved through mutual respect, accountability and adherence to the rule of law.” — Central Delhi court bar association
The police version of events, as analysis showed, included allegations that lawyers misbehaved with police officers and attempted to pressure the investigation. The protestors’ demands also included action against lawyers accused of misconduct and the establishment of protocols to prevent similar confrontations in the future.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.