Woman Advocate Alleges Sexual Assault by Gurugram Police; Supreme Court Hearing Set for Tomorrow
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi, June 5, 2025 — A woman advocate has moved the Supreme Court of India, alleging that she was sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, and illegally detained by police officials at the Sector 50 Police Station in Gurugram. The incident reportedly occurred on May 21, 2025, when she accompanied a client to the station in connection with a matrimonial dispute.
The petitioner is represented by Advocate Surya Nath Pandey.
According to the advocate’s petition, when her client attempted to file a complaint against his wife, police officials intervened, obstructed the filing, and then turned aggressive. The petitioner alleges that two male officers sexually assaulted her, while female officers physically assaulted her. She also claims police personnel attempted to give her an unidentified liquid to drink, which she refused.
Despite being taken to a Gurugram hospital, the petitioner alleges that no Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) was prepared, and she was returned to the police station. The next day, she submitted a written complaint to the Tees Hazari police post in Delhi. Subsequently, she registered FIRs at both the Sabzi Mandi Police Station in Delhi and a Gurugram station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 64(2), 74, 75, 79, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 324(4), and 3(5).
In a counteraction, the Gurugram Police registered an FIR against the petitioner under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, and 351(3) of the BNS.
Citing a threat of further harassment, malicious prosecution, and possible physical harm, the advocate has sought relief from the Supreme Court. She has requested that all three FIRs be transferred and clubbed under the jurisdiction of an independent investigative agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Delhi Police. She also seeks police protection and disciplinary action against the officers involved.
The matter was listed today before a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.G. Masih. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that despite multiple requests, the investigating officer had failed to provide a copy of the FIR registered by Gurugram Police. The counsel sought the Court’s direction to obtain the FIR.
The Bench, however, advised the petitioner to file a formal application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). Justice Masih questioned the need for Supreme Court intervention, remarking, “Is a lawyer required to get a direction from the court to obtain an FIR?”
The advocate’s counsel responded that such an application would be filed by the end of the day. The courtroom witnessed significant support from fellow lawyers, prompting Justice Mishra to comment, “Which CJM will refuse when a battery of lawyers appears?”
The petitioner, a practicing lawyer and executive member of a bar association representing over 30,000 members, argues that her detention violated fundamental legal safeguards. She claims that no arrest memo was issued and that no intimation was sent to her family or colleagues — a breach of procedural protections laid down in landmark rulings such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, and Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBI.
She asserts that the conduct of the Gurugram Police amounts to a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 22 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow
