Supreme Court of India 
Litigation News

Noida workers protest: Supreme Court refuses relief to accused DU student, asks her to move HC

The Court asked the 25-year-old DU student to approach the Allahabad High Court instead of directly moving the Supreme Court.

Ritu Yadav

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea by a Delhi University (DU) student challenging her arrest on allegations that she incited violence during an industrial workers’ protest in Noida on April 13 [Akriti Chaudhary v State of Uttar Pradesh].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan told her to move the Allahabad High Court first for relief.

Petitioner should avail appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum. Everyone comes here... There are 93,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court,” the Bench observed.

Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The Court took critical note that since the Supreme Court is situated in Delhi, people from across the country directly approach it, bypassing remedies before the High Court in the process.

Only in Article 32 petitions do we become a court of first instance,” the Court added.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Akriti Chaudhary challenging her arrest and seeking bail in the Noida protest violence case.

The case against her was tied to protests by factory workers in parts of Noida over demands for higher wages. The protests allegedly turned violent, with some protesters were accused of vandalising property, pelting stones and setting a vehicle on fire.

Chaudhary was among those accused in the case.

Advocates Diljit Singh Ahluwalia and Angad Ahluwalia appeared for Chaudhary before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Ahluwalia submitted that Chaudhary had not been furnished with the grounds of arrest till date, rendering her arrest illegal.

I’m a 25-year-old woman, a student in Delhi. My grounds of arrest have not been furnished till date, thereby my arrest is vitiated,” Ahluwalia argued.

Ahluwalia also relied on another case decided by the Supreme Court to contend that it involved similar issues concerning illegal arrest and multiple FIRs.

Lordships may just consider one thing. The Binay Kumar judgment says that in an identical case the arrest itself was illegal. Many FIRs were registered. If they say grounds of arrest were communicated, I’m out of court. The magistrates are not doing their job,” he submitted.

However, the Court ultimately asked Chaudhary to approach the High Court first for relief.

The petition was filed through Advocate R Ilam Paridi.

Tone and tenor with lawyers should be moderate: J&K High Court tells trial judge

Dispute resolution myths: True or false?

The Governor's gambit: Conventions betrayed in the land of Alladi

Mizo woman moves Supreme Court claiming new marriage law discriminates against Mizo women who marry non-Mizos

US securities market regulator sues M&A lawyers over insider trading allegations

SCROLL FOR NEXT