In a significant intervention regarding the safety of legal professionals and custodial conduct, the Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government on a plea filed by a woman advocate alleging illegal detention and custodial sexual assault at a police station in Noida.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria, issued notice on the petition which details harrowing allegations of police brutality. Recognizing the urgency of the evidence, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddha Nagar, to ensure that the CCTV footage of the concerned police station for the relevant duration is preserved in a sealed cover and neither destroyed nor deleted.
Grave Allegations of Custodial Torture
The petition details a traumatic incident allegedly occurring late on the night of December 3. The petitioner, a woman advocate, claims she was subjected to 14 hours of “illegal detention, custodial sexual assault, torture, and coercion” by police personnel.
According to the plea, these events transpired at the Sector 126 police station in Noida while the advocate was discharging her professional duties towards a client. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, described the incident as a “gross case” where a legal professional was “sexually mauled” inside the police station.
From High Court to Supreme Court: The Arguments
When the matter was first taken up, the Supreme Court Bench expressed reservation about entertaining the plea directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Bench observed that the petitioner should ideally approach the jurisdictional High Court—in this case, the Allahabad High Court—for redressal.
“We have all the sympathy. Let the High Court take appropriate action,” the Bench initially remarked, noting the procedural difficulty that if the apex court entertained such pleas, “all matters from all around Delhi will come to the Supreme Court only.”
However, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the Court to treat the matter as a “test case,” emphasizing the broader implications of such brutality occurring in the National Capital Region. “If it is happening in Noida, just imagine the plight of the entire country,” Singh argued.
The turning point in the hearing came when the counsel highlighted the alleged blocking of CCTV cameras during the incident. Singh contended that the CCTV footage should be immediately seized and noted that even the original complainant (the client) was forced to withdraw his complaint.
CCTV Monitoring and Interim Directions
Persuaded by the gravity of the allegations and the specific issue regarding the functioning of CCTV cameras, the Bench agreed to hear the matter. The Court noted that it is already monitoring the installation and functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations in a separate incident stemming from Rajasthan.
“Considering serious allegations made in the petition and the fact the issue also relates to blocking of CCTV cameras for the duration of the incident at the police station… We are entertaining this petition,” the Bench stated.
Regarding the petitioner’s safety, when Senior Advocate Singh raised concerns about the need for protection, the Bench remarked sternly, “They will dare not touch her after passing of this order.”
The matter is likely to be listed for the next hearing on January 7.
