Introduction
In a disturbing case raising serious questions about police accountability, custodial misconduct, and safety of legal professionals, the Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Union Government, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Uttar Pradesh Police on a petition filed by a woman lawyer alleging illegal detention, sexual assault, torture, and threats by police personnel at a Noida police station.
The petition, titled X v. Union of India & Ors., was taken up on December 19, 2025, by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria. While the Court acknowledged that it would not ordinarily entertain such matters directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, it made an exception in view of the gravity of allegations and the alleged tampering with CCTV cameras in police stations, an issue already under judicial monitoring.
Allegations of Illegal Detention and Sexual Assault
According to the petition, the woman advocate was acting in her professional capacity, wearing her advocate’s robes and carrying her identification card, when she visited Noida Sector 126 police station on December 3, 2025. She had gone to assist her client, who had allegedly suffered serious head injuries following an attack by several individuals, including a person allegedly linked to a national news channel.
Despite medical records confirming the injuries, the police officers reportedly refused to register a First Information Report (FIR). When the petitioner attempted to contact the Police Emergency Response Service, the police allegedly sealed the police station and began beating her client, claiming that senior officers were being summoned.
The plea alleges that the woman lawyer was illegally detained for over one and a half hours the next day, without any arrest memo or written grounds of detention, in complete violation of constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and settled criminal procedure law.
Alleged Police Brutality and Custodial Abuse
The petition makes deeply troubling allegations of custodial violence and sexual abuse. It claims that male police personnel tore her advocate coat, conducted an illegal body search, and subjected her to sexualised threats, including statements amounting to gross humiliation and intimidation.
She further alleges that she was threatened at gunpoint, her mobile phone was seized, and all videos documenting the incident were deleted. Most significantly, the petition states that the CCTV cameras inside the police station were either disabled, locked, or removed, allegedly to erase evidence of the incident.
According to the petitioner, her client was subsequently forced to withdraw the complaint, and she herself continues to face threats of counter-FIRs, raising concerns about misuse of police power to silence victims and legal representatives.
Submissions Before the Supreme Court
Arguments by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, described the incident as a “very gross case”, stating before the Court that the advocate was “sexually mauled” while the police ensured that CCTV cameras were non-functional.
He urged the Court to immediately secure the CCTV footage, warning that any delay could result in destruction of crucial evidence. Singh also argued that deliberate tampering with CCTV footage by police officers would set a dangerous precedent if left unchecked.
Highlighting the wider implications, he submitted that the case should serve as a test case for police accountability across the country, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s previous directions on installation and functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations.
Submissions by Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani
Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, also representing the petitioner, informed the Court that the petitioner’s mobile phone was seized and videos deleted, and that she continues to face *grave threats to her life.
Emphasising the chilling impact of the incident, Pavani posed a pointed question to the Court:
“If this is happening to advocates, what will happen to normal people?”
Supreme Court’s Observations on Article 32 Jurisdiction
The Bench expressed concern about the increasing tendency of litigants to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, bypassing High Courts.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that if the Court were to entertain all such cases under Article 32, “then all over Delhi will start to come to the Supreme Court only.” The Bench questioned why the petitioner had not first approached the Allahabad High Court, especially when the alleged incident occurred in Noida.
However, Senior Advocate Singh urged the Court to consider transferring the matter under Section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in the interim, to issue directions to preserve the CCTV footage.
Why the Supreme Court Entertained the Petition
Despite its reservations, the Supreme Court agreed to entertain the petition, citing exceptional circumstances. The Bench noted that the allegations involved locking or disabling of CCTV cameras, an issue that the same Bench is already monitoring in another matter concerning police stations in Rajasthan.
In its order, the Court recorded:
“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… we are entertaining this petition.”
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Uttar Pradesh Police, and listed the matter for January 7, 2026.
Crucially, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar, to ensure that the CCTV footage of the relevant period from the concerned police station is not deleted and is preserved in sealed cover.
This direction reinforces the Court’s earlier jurisprudence recognising CCTV footage as a vital safeguard against custodial violence, as laid down in landmark judgments such as Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.
Broader Implications: Police Accountability and Safety of Lawyers
The case highlights systemic concerns regarding custodial violence, misuse of police power, and intimidation of lawyers performing their professional duties. It also underscores the persistent gap between judicial directives on CCTV surveillance and their actual implementation on the ground.
For the legal community, the allegations strike at the heart of professional independence and personal safety. If advocates assisting injured clients can allegedly be detained, assaulted, and silenced, it raises alarming questions about access to justice and the rule of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to entertain the petition, despite its usual reluctance under Article 32, signals judicial recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of the allegations. The direction to preserve CCTV footage may prove decisive, not only for this case but also for reinforcing the deterrent role of surveillance in police stations.
As the matter comes up for further hearing in January 2026, it is likely to have far-reaching consequences for police reforms, custodial safeguards, and the protection of lawyers and citizens alike.
Also Read
Supreme Court Declines to Entertain Plea Seeking International Standards for Packaged Drinking Water
