New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognisance of the brutal stabbing of a woman advocate practising before courts in Delhi, allegedly by her husband, even as the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) strongly condemned the incident, terming it a “barbaric and premeditated attempt to murder” and demanding immediate arrest of the accused.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the criminal investigation be transferred to a senior police officer, ordered an inquiry into allegations that three hospitals denied the victim emergency treatment, and directed the release of interim financial assistance to her by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
The matter, titled In Re: Brutal Assault on a Member of the Legal Fraternity and Need for Judicial Intervention, SMW(C) No. 4 of 2026, was registered on the basis of a letter sent by Advocate Sneha Kalita, highlighting the attack on her colleague, Advocate Madhu Rajput.
The Chief Justice noted that he had received the letter on Sunday and immediately directed the registration of a suo motu case.
Brutal Assault and Delay in Medical Aid
Advocate Madhu Rajput, who practises at the Karkardooma Courts in Delhi, was reportedly stabbed multiple times with a sword by her husband during the intervening night of April 25 and 26. She is stated to have made calls to the Police Control Room and to her brother seeking help after the attack.
She was taken to three hospitals—GTB, RK, and Kailash—all of which allegedly refused to admit her, citing the critical nature of her condition. She was ultimately admitted to the AIIMS Trauma Centre at around 6:00 AM, where she received treatment before being shifted to a private hospital. Her condition is currently reported to be stable.
Advocate Sneha Kalita informed the Bench that despite severe injuries, the victim managed to make PCR calls but was denied immediate medical assistance.
“A lady lawyer was attacked. She was brutally stabbed in her husband’s office. She somehow managed to make PCR calls, and then hospitals refused to take her in,” she submitted.
The Court noted that the victim had suffered injuries to vital organs and that photographs on record reflected the extreme brutality of the attack.
Court Orders Probe, Seeks Accountability
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that an FIR had been registered under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and that the accused husband had been arrested and remanded to custody. The Court also noted that certain in-laws of the victim were absconding.
Expressing concern over the alleged denial of emergency treatment, the Bench questioned:
“Why did the hospitals deny emergency treatment?”
The Court directed the investigating officer to probe the circumstances surrounding the refusal of admission and to submit a status report. It further directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to transfer the investigation to a senior officer, preferably a woman officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police.
Children Missing, Custody Directions Issued
The Court noted that the victim has three minor daughters aged 12 years, 4 years, and 1 year. It was submitted that after the attack, the in-laws took away two of the children, whose whereabouts remain unknown, while the eldest child was abandoned outside the house at night by the accused and later recovered by the police.
The Court directed the police to trace the two missing children and ordered that custody of the eldest daughter shall continue with her maternal grandparents.
NALSA Aid Directed
Observing that the victim requires urgent financial support for medical treatment and the care of her children, the Court directed the Judicial Member Secretary of NALSA to release interim financial assistance by the following day.
“Since the victim is in need of financial assistance for treatment and to take care of her children, we direct the Judicial Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority, to grant financial aid to the victim. Let the amount be deposited by tomorrow,” the Court said.
The Chief Justice concluded the hearing by observing, “Praying for her speedy recovery.”
SCWLA Condemns ‘Barbaric’ Attack
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA), led by its President Mahalakshmi Pavani, issued a strongly worded statement condemning the incident as a “horrific and barbaric attempt to murder.”
The Association asserted that the attack was not a mere domestic dispute but a premeditated and savage act of violence, allegedly carried out using sharp-edged weapons, resulting in grievous and life-threatening injuries to the advocate.
Expressing “utter revulsion, visceral shock, and soul-wrenching agony,” SCWLA described the incident as a dark stain on the conscience of society and the legal fraternity.
Four Key Demands by SCWLA
SCWLA placed four categorical demands:
- Immediate Arrest: Prompt arrest and strict prosecution of the husband and complicit in-laws
- Zero Tolerance: Strict legal action to deter such acts of gender-based violence
- Institutional Support: Comprehensive medical, financial, and legal support for the victim
- Collective Accountability: A call for the legal fraternity to stand united and not remain silent
The Association emphasized that any delay in arrest would undermine faith in law enforcement and justice delivery.
“Enough Is Enough”
In a powerful closing remark, SCWLA declared that the brutality of the attack represents a tipping point.
“The moment for decisive action is now… Enough is Enough,” the statement said, calling for justice not only for Advocate Madhu but for all women professionals facing systemic vulnerabilities.
Case Details
- Case Title: In Re: Brutal Assault on a Member of the Legal Fraternity and Need for Judicial Intervention
- Case Number: SMW(C) No. 4 of 2026
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
- Date of Hearing: April 27, 2026
