Delhi Police Protest at PHQ Over ACP and SHO Transfers After Shahdara Lawyers Row, Explained

It is not often that a police force protests against its own leadership. On Monday, 2 November 2026, around 80 to 100 Delhi Police personnel, including women officers, gathered outside the Police Headquarters (PHQ) on Man Singh Road with placards and slogans. Their demand: bring back two officers who were transferred after a row with lawyers in Shahdara.

The officers are ACP Manasvi Vashistha and Inspector Arun Kumar, the Shahdara station house officer. They were moved on 28 October after district court lawyers went on an indefinite strike over a scuffle at Shahdara police station on 23 October. Vashistha, one of the two transferred officers, led Monday's protest. Here is how a police station scuffle turned into a protest at the force's headquarters.

The 60-second version

• Trigger: On 23 October, an advocate allegedly suffered a serious head injury in a scuffle at Shahdara police station.
• Lawyers' strike: District court lawyers struck work, alleging police inaction and that an officer displayed a loaded revolver at them. Senior police officials called that allegation false.
• Transfers: On 28 October, ACP Manasvi Vashistha was moved to the Special Police Unit for Women and Children and SHO Arun Kumar to the Security unit. The lawyers called off their strike.
• Protest: On 2 November, personnel gathered at PHQ Gate No. 1 from about 8 to 8.30 am, demanding the transfers be reversed.
• Response: Commissioner Anurag Kumar held a Sampark Sabha inside PHQ and promised action on "genuine concerns." The first round of talks did not settle the main demands, according to Jagran as cited by other outlets.
• Next: Lieutenant Governor Taranjit Singh Sandhu is scheduled to meet Delhi Police personnel on Tuesday, 3 November, at 4 pm.

How the Shahdara row started

The dispute began on the evening of 23 October, when several advocates went to Shahdara police station seeking action over an assault on a colleague. Hindustan Times named the injured advocate as Lalit Bansal.

The account of the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi, quoted by The Indian Express, says the ACP and the SHO assured the advocates that those named in the case would be arrested. On 24 October, the lawyers say, they learnt the accused had been released. When advocates returned to the police station, the committee alleges, the ACP "displayed his revolver and threatened and intimidated the advocates present."

That is the lawyers' allegation. Senior officials aware of the matter told The Hindu the allegations were false and there was no evidence to support them. The police side has also registered an FIR against advocates over the confrontation, Hindustan Times reported.

The strike and the transfers

District court lawyers began an indefinite abstention from work, and announced a march from Patiala House courts to the police headquarters, Hindustan Times reported. On 28 October, after a meeting between Delhi Police, the Bar Council of Delhi and the presidents and secretaries of the district bar associations, PHQ issued transfer orders:

Officer	Old posting	New posting
ACP Manasvi Vashistha	SDPO, Gandhi Nagar (Shahdara)	Special Police Unit for Women and Children (SPUWAC)
Inspector Arun Kumar	SHO, Shahdara police station	Security, Delhi Police

The lawyers called off the strike the same day. Their committee said the transfers were "not the end of the matter." It asked for an inquiry into the Shahdara Bar Association's complaints within two months, for the accused in the assault FIR to be arrested promptly, and for the investigation in the FIR against advocates to be finished within one week, Hindustan Times reported.

On 30 October, Commissioner Anurag Kumar chaired a meeting with the Bar Council of Delhi and district bar associations. Both sides agreed to set up a joint coordination committee and appoint nodal officers at the district level and at PHQ. It was also agreed that the bar association would, as far as practicable, be informed when an FIR is registered against a practising advocate, Hindustan Times reported.

Inside the PHQ protest

The transfers ended the lawyers' strike but, The Indian Express reported, caused discontent among a section of the police. On Monday morning the protest began outside Gate No. 1, even though orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force in the New Delhi district, ThePrint reported.

DCP (New Delhi) Sachin Sharma tried to persuade the personnel to go inside and take up their grievances. "We are a disciplined force. Do not behave like protesters," he told them, according to ThePrint. They initially refused.

Vashistha spoke for the group. "If we are not safe inside the police stations, how can we ensure the safety of others," the ACP said, as quoted by ThePrint. The ACP also called for rules against what were described as "behrupias (shapeshifters) in black coats," and for a cell at PHQ that could cancel the licence of any lawyer involved in "illegal" activities. Those are the protesters' words and proposals, not Delhi Police policy.

"There needs to be an SOP (standard operating procedure) to deal with such matters," Vashistha told Hindustan Times, amid chants of "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" and "Police Ekta Zindabad."

Around 11.45 am, the personnel were taken into the Adarsh Auditorium, where Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Special Commissioners met them. Those at the meeting told The Indian Express the gathering had grown to about 500, and that the Commissioner said the Prime Minister and the Home Ministry stood with police officers.

What the protesters want

The written list of demands submitted to the Commissioner, as reported by ThePrint, asked for:

1. The transfer orders for the ACP and the SHO to be reversed.
2. An assurance that cases registered against lawyers involved in the confrontation would not be cancelled or withdrawn.
3. No legal or departmental action against personnel who joined the protest.
4. An interactive meeting with the Commissioner on "broader grievances regarding departmental pressure" and "one-sided actions against the force."

Personnel also raised the treatment of police in courts, sought a larger police presence there and a redressal committee, The Indian Express reported.

The anger went beyond two transfers. "Every time there is a confrontation between the police and lawyers, it is the police who are suppressed and action is taken against us," a sub-inspector told The Indian Express. Women personnel recalled the 2019 Tis Hazari violence, and ASI Jyoti said women officers face derogatory remarks from lawyers during court work. Some personnel alleged that messages were circulating asking DCPs to identify who had joined the protest. That claim was reported as an allegation and has not been confirmed by Delhi Police.

What Delhi Police has promised

A Delhi Police statement after the Sampark Sabha said the Commissioner "assured them that prompt and appropriate actions will be taken to address their genuine concerns systematically to reinforce the morale of the force and uphold the dignity and honour of the police uniform," ThePrint reported.

The statement also said:

• A joint coordination committee with lawyers' representatives will be set up at district and PHQ level.
• Promotions, MACP, housing and other service issues "will also receive due attention."
• All district and unit heads must hold regular Sampark Sabhas, examine grievances and start time-bound remedial action, with senior officers monitoring.

The statement, as reported, did not say the transfers would be reversed.

Is the protest over?

Not as of Monday evening. The meeting ended around 3 pm. Personnel then sat outside Gate No. 1, and later moved to the footpath opposite PHQ, next to the YMCA bus stand, saying they did not want to block traffic. Around 5 pm, Vashistha and five others went back in to speak to senior officers, The Indian Express reported.

Jagran, as cited by other outlets, reported that the first round of talks ended without a decision on the principal demands, and that a second round was being prepared.

The 2019 precedent

Delhi has seen this before. In November 2019, after clashes between police and lawyers that included a parking dispute at Tis Hazari court, more than 2,000 police personnel and family members gathered outside the old PHQ at ITO. Then Commissioner Amulya Patnaik was drowned out by slogans when he came out to address them, ThePrint recalled.

That protest ended after senior officers promised a review petition in court, medical help for the injured, and a minimum ex-gratia of Rs 25,000, The Hindu and ThePrint reported.

What to watch next

1. The LG's interaction on 3 November. Lieutenant Governor Taranjit Singh Sandhu is scheduled to meet personnel from constable to inspector rank at Utsav Sadan, Kingsway Camp, at 4 pm, The Indian Express reported.
2. Whether the transfers stand. Reversing them would answer the police protest, but the lawyers called off their strike because of those orders.
3. Action against protesters. Personnel asked for an assurance of no departmental action. Any move against them could escalate the dispute.
4. The two FIRs. The lawyers set deadlines for the assault FIR and the FIR against advocates. Progress on both will shape whether either side protests again.
5. The joint coordination committee. It was agreed on 30 October. How fast it starts working will show whether the police and the bar have a channel short of strikes and sit-ins.

A scuffle at one police station has now produced a lawyers' strike, two transfers and a protest by police outside their own headquarters. The next test is whether the force's leadership can settle its own ranks without reopening the row with the bar.

---

This explainer is based on reporting by The Indian Express, ThePrint, The Hindu and Hindustan Times on 28 October to 2 November 2026, including the Delhi Police statement and the circulars of the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi as quoted by those outlets, and on Jagran's account of the talks as cited by other outlets. Allegations by lawyers and by police personnel are attributed and have not been tested in court. The situation was developing at the time of writing.