SC issues notice on woman lawyer’s plea alleging custodial sexual assault at Noida police station
The Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and Uttar Pradesh on a plea by a woman advocate alleging illegal detention, custodial sexual assault, and CCTV tampering at Noida’s Sector 126 police station, directing preservation of relevant footage
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and others on a plea filed by a woman advocate alleging illegal detention and custodial sexual assault at a police station in Noida.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria also directed the commissioner of police of Gautam Buddha Nagar district to ensure that CCTV camera footage from the police station for the concerned duration is not deleted or destroyed, and kept in a sealed cover.
The apex court was hearing the plea filed by the woman advocate, who claimed that she was subjected to 14 hours of “illegal detention, custodial sexual assault, torture and coercion” by police personnel at the Sector 126 police station in Noida late on the night of December 3 while she was discharging her professional duty towards her client.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said it was a very gross case where a woman advocate was “sexually mauled” and kept under illegal detention.
“This is a very gross case happening right around Delhi. If it is happening in Noida, just imagine the plight of the entire country,” Singh said.
The bench said normally it would not have entertained the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution, and would have given liberty to the petitioner to approach jurisdictional high court.
The top court said it was already dealing with a separate case relating to installation and functioning of CCTV cameras at police stations in Rajasthan.
“However, considering the serious allegations made in the petition, and the fact that the issue also relates to blocking of CCTV cameras for the duration of the incident at the police station, we are entertaining this petition. Issue notice, returnable on January 7,” the bench said.
It added, “In the meantime, the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar, is directed to ensure that the CCTV footage of the concerned police station for the concerned duration is not destroyed or deleted and is kept in a sealed cover.” After the bench passed the order, Singh raised the issue of protection to the petitioner.
“They will dare not touch her after passing of this order,” the bench said.
During the hearing, Singh said the CCTV cameras at the police station should be immediately seized. He also said that the complainant was beaten up and was forced to withdraw his complaint.
The bench initially asked why the petitioner did not approach the Allahabad High Court with her grievance.
“We have all the sympathy. Let the high court take appropriate action,” the bench observed.
Singh said the apex court may transfer the petition to the high court.
“The difficulty is if we start entertaining this (plea), all matters from all around Delhi will come to the Supreme Court only,” the bench said.
Singh then urged the bench to take this as some kind of a “test case”.
The top court is also monitoring the CCTV matter, which is very important, he said.
Singh said the apex court should send a signal to the entire country that such incidents would not be tolerated at all.
The bench then agreed to hear the plea, and issued notice on it.
The plea said the petitioner was targeted solely for discharging her professional duty and insisting on mandatory registration of an FIR for her grievously injured client.
“The petitioner’s life was immediately endangered when a government pistol was placed upon her neck by the police staff, coercing her to surrender her mobile phone password. She was also subjected to continuous threats of being killed in a fake encounter,” the plea claimed.
It alleged that the officers maliciously disabled or removed CCTV systems from the police station premises, which was in flagrant violation of the binding mandate laid down by the apex court.
“The subsequent conduct of the state respondents compounds the violation. They failed to initiate a mandatory FIR, failed to secure evidence, and are actively protecting the accused officers, who continue to issue threats of counter FIRs against the petitioner,” the plea claimed.
The petitioner sought a direction to the Uttar Pradesh DGP to forthwith register an FIR against the police officers posted at the Sector 126 police station on the date of the incident under the relevant penal provisions.
Besides other prayers, the plea also sought a direction to the Uttar Pradesh government to entrust the investigation of the matter to an Special Investigation Team or the Central Bureau of Investigation.
