Supreme Court Refuses Ex-Mayor's Plea for FIR Over UP Police Raid

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking the registration of an FIR against Uttar Pradesh Police officers over an alleged midnight raid at his Nizamuddin East residence. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police station for appropriate legal remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, instead of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution at the first instance.

The petition arose from an incident during the intervening night of August 22 and 23, when Ghaziabad Police officers arrived at Suri's Delhi home. According to the petitioner, a large contingent of police personnel in multiple vehicles conducted an unauthorized search without a warrant in pursuit of independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay. Upadhyay had previously reported on allegations concerning donation misappropriations tied to the Ayodhya Ram Temple and has since been granted interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court.

Representing the petitioner, advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi argued that the police action was unlawful and requested the Supreme Court to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to establish comprehensive guidelines governing inter-state police operations. However, the Bench plainly refused to entertain the prayer for guidelines, maintaining that direct petitions under Article 32 to compel the registration of an FIR are inappropriate when standard statutory avenues remain available.

Appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Advocate General Sharan Thakur strongly defended the police action and denied that an illegal raid took place. The law officer submitted to the court that officers were attempting to apprehend an individual in connection with a registered FIR regarding a road-rage incident. Thakur stated that a proper General Diary entry was recorded, and officers merely rang the doorbell to verify if Upadhyay was residing at the premises before leaving without entering the house.

The State counsel further contended that the search was legally authorized under Section 44 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and occurred prior to the Supreme Court granting Upadhyay interim protection from arrest on August 25. Describing the petitioner's legal challenge as an overreaction, Thakur told the court that the police were simply executing their duties.

Addressing the substantive legal request, the Bench observed that grievances regarding the refusal to register an FIR can be effectively addressed by approaching the local police station under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court noted it had no reason to doubt that the competent police authority would act strictly in accordance with the law, disposing of the petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue statutory remedies.