SC Plea Exposes Noida Police Horror: Woman Advocate Claims Assault, Unlawful Custody

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Union government, Uttar Pradesh and its police on a habeas corpus petition by a woman advocate alleging grievous sexual assault, torture, illegal detention and threats by officers at Noida’s Sector 126 police station while discharging professional duties.

“The core facts reveal that the Petitioner was targeted solely for discharging her professional duty and insisting on the mandatory registration of an FIR for her grievously injured client, Shri Vinay Singhal, whose serious head injuries are verified by MLC No. 22337.”

A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and N.V. Anjaria took up the matter, as senior counsel Vikas Singh, for the petitioner, branded it a “gross miscarriage of justice,” claiming the advocate was “sexually mauled” after CCTV cameras were deliberately locked.

“Custodial Sexual Misconduct: Male police personnel, including SHO Bhupinder (R-5), subjected the Petitioner to physical manhandling, 2. C indecent sexual assault and gave her sexual threats.”

Singh urged immediate seizure of footage to preserve evidence. He further described that the complainant was forced to withdraw the complaint, all this will have to be looked into. This is very serious in Delhi.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted before the Bench that the victim’s mobile phone had been unlawfully seized and all video recordings contained therein were deleted.

“Destruction of Evidence (Contempt of Court): This coercion led to the immediate and deliberate deletion of all recorded video evidence from her and her client’s mobile devices. Concurrently, the Respondent officers maliciously disabled and/or removed CCTV systems from the police station premises, a calculated act in flagrant violation of the binding mandate laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184, thereby obstructing justice and destroying crucial evidence meant to curb custodial torture.”

She further stated, with palpable anguish, that there had been an explicit threat to her life, describing the ordeal as deeply traumatic and confessing that she remained in a state of fear.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Bench turned its attention to the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the petitioner ought to have first approached the jurisdictional High Court for relief. “Why have you come directly to this Court?” the Bench queried.

While acknowledging that the petitioner resides in Noida and that the Supreme Court may appear more convenient, the Judges underscored that mere convenience cannot constitute sufficient ground for invoking Article 32.

The Court thus noted that the only justification advanced for filing the petition before the Supreme Court was proximity, which by itself does not satisfy the constitutional threshold.

Here’s a rewritten paragraph with crisp judicial flair—streamlined for legal precision, courtroom drama, and rhythmic flow, ideal as a news lead continuation.

Senior counsel Vikas Singh urged transfer of the FIR under Section 142 CrPC and immediate preservation of CCTV footage, warning, “Let Your Lordships transfer it, but in the interim, direct its safekeeping—lest all evidence be destroyed.”

He cautioned that unchecked tampering would set a “dangerous precedent,” proposing the case as a “test case” to send a nationwide message against such brutality towards advocates. “If this happens to lawyers, what fate awaits ordinary citizens?” petitioner’s counsel Pavani interjected. The Bench, however, sounded a note of caution on Article 32 jurisdiction, with Justice Nath observing, “If we entertain every such plea under 32, all of Delhi will flock to the Supreme Court.” Singh countered, “Your Lordships are already seized of CCTV issues—this makes it pivotal.”

They agreed to take up the petition, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the bench’s ongoing monitoring of CCTV cameras.

The order stated that “normally we would not have entertained this case, however considering the serious allegations made in the petition and the fact that the issue also relates to locking of CCTV cameras and this bench is monitoring the installation and functioning of CCTV cameras taking up an incident from Rajasthan, we are entertaining the petition”

The Court, upon preliminary consideration of the matter, issued notice and directed that the case be listed for hearing on January 7, 2026. In the interim, the Court has directed the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar, to ensure that the CCTV footage pertaining to the relevant period at the concerned police station is preserved intact and placed in a sealed cover before the Court.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleges grave violations of fundamental rights. It is contended that a female Advocate was illegally detained, subjected to sexual assault, torture, and threats by police officers at the Noida Sector 126 Police Station, while discharging her professional duties in aid of her client.

The petitioner asserts that she was present in her official capacity, duly attired in her advocate’s robes and carrying her identification card.

According to the pleadings, the petitioner’s client had sustained head injuries on December 3 following an attack allegedly perpetrated by several individuals, including one linked to a national news channel. Medical records are said to corroborate that the client suffered multiple injuries.

When the petitioner approached the police station to insist upon the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), two police officers allegedly refused to comply.

It is further averred that when the petitioner attempted to contact the Police Emergency Response Service, the officers sealed the station premises and commenced beating her client.

On the following day, the petitioner was allegedly detained for approximately one and a half hours without the issuance of an arrest memo or any written grounds of detention.

During this period, male officers are said to have torn her coat, subjected her to a body search, threatened her with a firearm, and hurled sexual threats. One of the alleged remarks recorded in the petition reads: “Teri jaisi vakil hum rataoon ku sulatey hein tangaoon ke nichey” (translated: “We make lawyers like you sleep under our legs at night”).

The petitioner has further submitted that her mobile phone was seized, videos were deleted, and CCTV cameras within the police station were either disabled or removed.