New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Uttar Pradesh Police on a petition filed by a woman lawyer alleging that she was illegally detained, sexually assaulted, threatened, and humiliated by police personnel of the Noida Sector-126 Police Station while performing her professional duties in securing registration of an FIR for her injured client.
The petition, filed under Article 32, asserts that she was kept in custody for nearly fourteen hours without lawful justification; that her mobile phone was snatched and videos recorded therein were forcibly deleted; that CCTV cameras in the police station were disabled; that she was subjected to gender-based insults, physical aggression, and threats with a firearm; and that her client was coerced into withdrawing his complaint despite medical evidence of injury.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, described the incident as “a very gross case” and sought urgent directions for securing sealed CCTV footage from the police station to prevent destruction of evidence. Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the Bench that the petitioner, an officer of the court, continues to face intimidation for having insisted that the police register an FIR.
The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and N.V. Anjaria questioned why the matter had not first been taken to the jurisdictional High Court, noting that convenience of residence alone is not a ground to invoke Article 32. However, considering the gravity of the allegations, the Bench issued notice and called upon the respondents to file their responses.
The petition invokes settled constitutional doctrine that custodial violence or sexual assault by State actors is incompatible with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It relies on Supreme Court dicta that “no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” and that custodial abuse “strikes at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III.”
It was submitted that if an advocate acting in aid of due process can be treated in such a manner, it raises serious concerns regarding access to justice for ordinary citizens. The petitioner told the Court, “If this is happening to advocates, what will happen to normal people?”, emphasising systemic failures in accountability.
The issuance of notice aligns with broader jurisprudence in which the Court has repeatedly affirmed that illegal detention, gender-based violence, and interference with evidence are matters requiring strict judicial oversight. In 2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that violations of dignity and bodily integrity by State actors cannot be shielded by claims of routine policing and that allegations of custodial assault warrant independent investigation. The present petition seeks preservation of CCTV material, an independent probe, and compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
The matter has been posted for further hearing, with the Court expected to consider responses from the Centre, the State, and the Noida police authorities on allegations of illegal custody, sexual assault, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of an advocate performing professional duties.
Case Details:
Case Name: X v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate; Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Senior Advocate, instructed by counsel on record
Advocates for Respondents: To be filed upon service of notice; Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh Police have been directed to respond
