Woman lawyer moves Supreme Court alleging sexual assault, illegal detention by Noida Police

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Central government, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Uttar Pradesh Police on a plea filed by a woman lawyer alleging that police officers at Noida’s Sector 126 police station illegally detained, sexually assaulted, tortured and threatened her while she was performing her professional duties [X v. Union of India & Ors.]

The matter came before a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, described the incident as “a very gross case,” stating that the advocate was “sexually mauled” while the police locked the CCTV cameras.

Singh urged the Court to seize the footage immediately.

“The complainant was forced to withdraw his complaint. All this will have to be looked into. This is very very serious in Delhi,” Singh said.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, also appearing for the petitioner, said,

“They seized my (victim's) mobile and deleted all the videos. There was a threat to my life. It is traumatic. I am scared.”

The bench asked why the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court instead of the High Court.

“Why didn’t you approach the High Court? We are conscious you live in Noida and Supreme Court is more convenient. But that’s the only ground for filing under Article 32,” the Court noted.

Singh sought a transfer of the matter under Section 142 CrPC and urged the Court to ensure the CCTV footage is preserved.

“Let your lordships transfer it then. In the meantime, direct them to keep the CCTV. Otherwise all the evidence will be destroyed,” he said.

Singh further stressed that deliberate tampering with evidence could set a dangerous precedent if left unchecked. He added,

“Your lordships are also dealing with the CCTV cameras. This may be made a test case. This should be a message for the entire country. This kind of treatment to a lawyer.”

Pavani emphasized the wider concern, asking,

“If this is happening to advocates, what will happen to normal people?”

The bench expressed caution about entertaining all such cases under Article 32 (right to approach the Supreme Court directly).

“In 32, if we start entertaining all this, then all over Delhi will start to come to the Supreme Court only,” Justice Nath observed.

“Your lordships are also dealing with the CCTV cameras. That is why this case is important,” responded Singh.

The Court ultimately agreed to take up the petition, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the bench’s ongoing monitoring of CCTV cameras.

The order stated,

“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 and as this bench is monitoring the installation and functioning of CCTV cameras taking up an incident from Rajasthan, we are entertaining this petition.”

The Court issued notice and listed the matter for January 7, 2026.

In the meantime, the Commissioner of Police of Gautam Buddh Nagar was directed to ensure that the CCTV footage for the relevant duration in the police station is not deleted and is kept in sealed cover.

The petition filed, alleges that the female advocate, was illegally detained, sexually assaulted, tortured, and threatened by police officers at Noida Sector 126 police station while assisting her client, who had sustained serious head injuries on December 3.

The petitioner was acting in her professional capacity, wearing her advocate robes and carrying her identification card.

According to the petition, her client was attacked by several people, including someone linked to a national news channel, and medical records confirmed that the client sustained multiple injuries.

When the petitioner arrived at the police station to insist that a First Information Report (FIR) be registered, two police officers, allegedly refused to register it.

She attempted to call the Police Emergency Response Service, but the police reportedly sealed the station and began beating her client, stating,

“Hum senior officer lekar aate hain.” (We are calling for senior officers.)

The petitioner claims she was detained from approximately one and a half hours the next day without an arrest memo or written grounds of detention.

During this period, male police personnel allegedly tore her advocate coat, searched her body, threatened her with a gun, and used sexualized threats, including,

“Terijaisi wakil hum raaton ko sulate hai apni tango ke niche.” (We make lawyers like you sleep under our legs at night.)

According to the plea, her mobile phone was seized, and videos were deleted and CCTV cameras in the station were disabled or removed.

Further, as per the petitioner, her client was forced to withdraw the complaint, and the petitioner was released shortly afterward though she continues to face threats of counter-FIRs.

[Read Live Coverage]