Supreme Court: Rejects Farhad Suri CBI Probe for Police Raid

• The Supreme Court rejected former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri's Article 32 petition seeking a CBI probe into an alleged midnight raid by UP Police.
• Suri claimed UP Police raided his Delhi home at 1 AM on August 22-23, 2026, without a warrant or local police coordination.
• The Court advised Suri to pursue statutory remedies for FIR registration, such as approaching local police or superior officers.
• Suri had previously filed a complaint with Delhi Police and approached the NHRC and UP DGP, but an FIR was not registered.
• The UP government argued the petition was an abuse of process, while the Court expressed confidence in police adherence to law.

The Court emphasized that the request for FIR registration against police personnel could be addressed by approaching the relevant police station.

Former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri recently brought a petition before the Supreme Court, detailing an alleged late-night operation by Uttar Pradesh Police at his residence. Suri, a 68-year-old former Congress councillor, claimed that a substantial contingent of UP Police personnel, including an Assistant Commissioner of Police and several Sub-Inspectors, along with approximately 30 other individuals, some not in uniform, arrived at his East Nizamuddin home in Delhi around 1 AM on the night of August 22-23, 2026. He contended that this group, led by ACP Suryabali Maurya from Ghaziabad's Indirapuram police station, demanded his presence outside his C-33A residence.

According to Suri, who was alone at home, the officers initially stated they were searching for a suspect involved in a "double-murder case." However, when he requested to see a search warrant, none was produced. The petition further asserts that the operation proceeded without any prior coordination with the local Delhi Police. Suri later discovered that the team was reportedly acting on FIR No. 678/2026, which had been registered at the Indirapuram police station in connection with an individual named Abhishek Upadhyay. This discrepancy, between the initial stated purpose and the underlying FIR, was highlighted in Suri's plea as central to his argument that the police action lacked lawful authority. Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government, however, countered these claims in court, stating that the police "did not even enter his house."

Following the alleged incident, Mr. Suri took immediate steps to address the purported police misconduct. He contacted the local Station House Officer (SHO) at Hazrat Nizamuddin at approximately 12:54 AM and again at 1:06 AM, only to be informed that the SHO was aware of a UP Police team visiting a nearby railway station but had no information regarding which premises were to be searched. A police diary entry related to the operation was reportedly made only at 1:11:59 AM, after the alleged events had already commenced.

On the same day, Suri lodged a formal complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South-East Delhi. In this complaint, he sought the registration of an FIR, the identification of all individuals accompanying the raiding party, and the tracing of call records for the approximately 10-15 vehicles involved, some of which bore Uttar Pradesh registrations. However, the petition states that this complaint was merely forwarded through the bureaucratic chain of command—from the Commissioner's office to the Special Commissioner (Law & Order) and subsequently to the Joint Commissioner, Southern Range—without an FIR ever being registered. Suri also approached the National Human Rights Commission on August 25 and the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police on August 27, but reported receiving no effective response from either body.

Ultimately, through his counsel, AoR Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Suri's criminal writ petition to the Supreme Court sought a directive for the registration of an FIR against the named officers and unidentified accompanying persons. He also requested that the investigation be handed over to an independent agency, "preferably" the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and that the court establish guidelines for interstate police raids in India.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to entertain Farhad Suri's Article 32 petition, which sought a CBI probe into the alleged police misconduct and the establishment of interstate police raid India guidelines. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that it found no reason to issue specific orders in the matter. The Court emphasized that the request for FIR registration against police personnel could be addressed by approaching the relevant police station.

The bench further articulated its confidence that the police would "strictly act in accordance with law," suggesting that statutory provisions exist for recourse, such as approaching a superior officer, if an FIR is not registered. Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government supported this view, arguing that the Article 32 petition constituted a clear abuse of the court's process. This decision underscores the judiciary's expectation that petitioners exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking direct intervention from the apex court, particularly in matters concerning police action and FIR registration.

The Supreme Court's refusal to entertain an Article 32 petition seeking a CBI probe into alleged police misconduct highlights the importance for lawyers of exhausting statutory remedies, such as approaching local police or superior officers for FIR registration, before seeking direct intervention from the apex court. This decision reinforces the procedural hierarchy for challenging police actions and the limitations of Article 32 jurisdiction in such matters.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets