The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri, alleging that a large contingent of Uttar Pradesh Police personnel attempted to raid his residence in East Nizamuddin around 1 am without a search warrant and without proper coordination with the Delhi Police.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined to pass any directions, observing that Suri could approach the concerned police station for registration of an FIR against the police personnel allegedly involved.
A CJI-led Bench stated that the request to file an FIR against police officers should be directed to the appropriate police station, adding that they expect the police to follow the law strictly.
Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, counsel submitted that the Article 32 petition amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. The State also pointed out that if the police refuse to register an FIR, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of approaching a superior police officer. The State additionally informed the Court that they never even went inside his house.
The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Anoop Prakash Awasthi, states that Suri, 68, was alone at his residence at C-33A, East Nizamuddin, during the intervening night of August 22 and 23, 2026, when a police team allegedly arrived at his house.
According to the plea, the team was led by ACP Suryabali Maurya of Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad and included five named sub-inspectors and around 30 other persons, several of whom were allegedly not in uniform.
The petition alleges that the police personnel asked Suri to come out of his residence and initially told him that they were looking for a suspect in a “double-murder case”. When Suri sought to see a search warrant, none was allegedly produced.
He later learned, according to the plea, that the police team was acting in connection with FIR No. 678/2026 registered at Indirapuram Police Station concerning one Abhishek Upadhyay. The petition describes the alleged discrepancy between the explanation initially given to Suri and the actual case as central to its contention that the operation lacked lawful authority.
The plea further alleges that Suri contacted the Station House Officer of Hazrat Nizamuddin Police Station at around 12:54 am and again at 1:06 am. The SHO allegedly informed him that he was aware only of a UP Police team having visited the nearby railway station and had no information about which premises were to be searched.
According to Suri, this demonstrated that the UP Police operation was carried out without the requisite inter-state coordination and authorisation. The petition also states that the corresponding police diary entry was made only at 1:11:59 am, after the alleged operation had already commenced.
Suri had submitted a complaint to the DCP, South-East Delhi, on the same day, seeking registration of an FIR, identification of all persons accompanying the police team and preservation and tracing of call records and details of around 10-15 vehicles allegedly used during the operation, several of which reportedly bore Uttar Pradesh registration numbers.
The petition states that the complaint was forwarded through various levels of the police hierarchy, from the Commissioner’s office to the Special Commissioner (Law & Order) and subsequently to the Joint Commissioner, Southern Range, but no FIR was registered.
Suri also approached the National Human Rights Commission on August 25 and the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police on August 27, claiming that no effective action followed.
Before the Supreme Court, Suri sought directions for registration of an FIR against the named police officers and unidentified persons who allegedly accompanied them. He also sought an independent investigation, preferably by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The petition further sought court-mandated guidelines governing inter-state police raids on residential premises, including prior written intimation to the local police, verification of search warrants, exclusion of unauthorised persons from police teams and preservation of CCTV and electronic evidence.
Suri also sought compensation for the alleged violation of his dignity and personal liberty.
An interim application accompanying the petition sought urgent directions for preservation of CCTV footage, call detail records, GPS data and vehicle records relating to the night of the alleged incident, apprehending that such material could be overwritten or lost before any investigation commenced.
The petition explained that Suri had approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 rather than the Delhi High Court, citing the pendency of a related matter, Writ Petition No. 339/2026, before the apex court, as well as the urgency of the circumstances.
The post Supreme Court declines to intervene in Ex-Delhi Mayor’s plea alleging illegal UP police raid at Delhi home appeared first on India Legal.