The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking the transfer of a police inquiry from Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Sandeep Lamba, holding that allegations arising from a viral protest video alone cannot establish bias in an unrelated investigation.
The case involved a 68-year-old woman who alleged that she was forcibly taken from her residence during Ramadan in 2025 and detained overnight by the police. She sought the transfer of the inquiry, claiming she had lost confidence in Lamba’s ability to conduct a fair investigation.
Court Says Viral Video Alone Cannot Establish Bias
During the hearing, Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that a viral video allegedly showing the officer slapping a woman protester during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ demonstration could not automatically tarnish his reputation or prove prejudice.
The court noted that law enforcement officers often face difficult situations during large-scale protests and said individual incidents should not be used to presume bias in every official duty assigned to them.
It further remarked that while citizens have a fundamental right to protest, such demonstrations must remain within lawful limits, and allegations against an officer should be examined through proper legal processes rather than assumptions.
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petitioner argued that she had been illegally detained after being taken from her home during Ramadan and questioned the fairness of the inquiry being conducted under Lamba’s supervision.
She claimed the inquiry was initially being closed without recording her statement, despite an earlier High Court order directing an independent inquiry and preservation of CCTV footage from the police station where she was allegedly detained.
Following the court’s earlier directions, her statement was eventually recorded on July 13.
Her legal team later cited the widely circulated protest video involving Lamba as a fresh development, arguing that it created a reasonable apprehension of bias and justified transferring the inquiry to another senior police officer.
Delhi Police Informs Court Inquiry Is Complete
During the proceedings, Delhi Police informed the High Court that the inquiry into the woman’s complaint had already been completed.
According to the police, the petitioner’s statement had been recorded and the inquiry report was forwarded to the competent authority, which would communicate its final decision to her.
Taking note of this submission, the court held that no further issues remained for adjudication and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Court Emphasises Fairness for All Parties
While declining the petition, the High Court observed that allegations against a police officer must be examined through due process and that every individual, including public officials, is entitled to a fair inquiry.
The court also cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions about an officer’s impartiality solely on the basis of separate allegations or public perception.
FAQs
1. Why did the Delhi High Court dismiss the petition?
The court noted that the police inquiry had already been completed and found no grounds to transfer it to another officer.
2. Who filed the petition?
A 68-year-old woman who alleged illegal detention by Delhi Police during Ramadan in 2025 filed the plea.
3. Why did the petitioner question the officer’s impartiality?
She referred to a viral video allegedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester during a demonstration, arguing it raised concerns about bias.
4. What did the High Court say about the viral video?
The court observed that the video alone could not tarnish the officer’s reputation or establish that he would be biased in every investigation.
5. What was the original complaint about?
The petitioner alleged she was forcibly taken from her home and detained overnight by police.
6. Was the petitioner’s statement recorded?
Yes. Following an earlier High Court direction, her statement was recorded before the inquiry was completed.
7. What did Delhi Police tell the court?
Police informed the court that the inquiry had been completed and the report submitted to the competent authority for a final decision.
8. What does ‘petition dismissed as infructuous’ mean?
It means the court found that the issue no longer required judicial intervention because the requested process had already been completed.
9. Did the court rule on the allegations against the officer?
No. The court only considered whether the inquiry should be transferred and did not determine the merits of separate allegations.
10. What happens next in the case?
The competent authority will communicate its final decision on the inquiry to the petitioner.
