The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking the transfer of an inquiry from the supervision of Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba, who recently came under scrutiny after a viral video allegedly showed him slapping a woman during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests.

The bench headed by Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the officer's reputation could not be undermined merely on the basis of the viral video, stressing that courts must be mindful of the realities faced by police personnel while handling large-scale demonstrations.

“Just because he was caught in some video allegedly slapping a lady, we cannot tarnish him. Are we aware of the ground realities? How the crowd would have entered the Parliament and firing would have started and so many would have died?” the Court remarked.

The observations came while hearing a petition filed by a 68-year-old woman, who alleged that she was forcibly evicted from her home during Ramadan last year and illegally detained overnight by the police. She sought the transfer of the inquiry into her complaint, claiming she had lost faith in Lamba's ability to conduct a fair investigation.

The petitioner submitted that the High Court had earlier directed an independent inquiry into her allegations and ordered preservation of CCTV footage from the police station where she was detained. She further alleged that Lamba had initially attempted to close the inquiry without recording her statement, prompting her to challenge the communication before the Court.

Subsequently, the High Court directed Lamba to record her statement before concluding the inquiry, following which her statement was recorded on July 13.

The petitioner later relied on media reports and the viral video of Lamba allegedly slapping a woman protester during the Jantar Mantar demonstrations, arguing that the incident created a reasonable apprehension of bias and warranted transferring the inquiry to another senior officer.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate M. Sufian Siddiqui contended that the officer's conduct during the protests, coupled with the earlier handling of the inquiry, justified the petitioner's apprehensions.

"The supervening circumstances, when cumulatively considered with the past background, have given rise to a grave apprehension of bias in the mind of the petitioner. The inquiry officer himself is alleged to have violated a woman's rights. Initially, the inquiry was sought to be closed without even recording the victim's statement," Siddiqui argued.

The Court, however, rejected the contention, observing that allegations arising from a separate incident could not automatically establish bias in every inquiry handled by the officer.

"The fundamental right to protest exists, but it does not extend to damaging the seat of sovereignty. How he handled the crowd—even if it involved an alleged overuse of power—cannot by itself tarnish him. He is also entitled to a fair trial and inquiry. Does that mean he will be biased in every case? You have to be fair. Stop discrediting the institution," Justice Kathpalia said.

During the hearing, the Delhi Police informed the Court that the inquiry into the petitioner's complaint had already been completed, her statement had been recorded, and the inquiry report had been forwarded to the competent authority for a final decision, which would be communicated to her.

Taking note of the submission, the Court held that no further relief survived for consideration.

"Considering the statement of the ASC, the petition is held infructuous and dismissed," the Court ordered.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates M. Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, Niyazuddin and Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed of Global Law Chambers.