The Supreme Court did not entertain on Tuesday (September 14, 2026) a petition filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri for registration of an FIR against police officers who conducted an alleged midnight raid at his Nizamuddin East residence in the national capital, purportedly in search of Abhishek Upadhyay, an independent journalist who flagged the Ram Temple donations’ misappropriations.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked the petitioner, represented by advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi, to approach the jurisdictional police station for the appropriate remedy under the relevant provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Journalist tells SC that U.P.
Police seeking digital footprint to dig out his Ram Temple donation case sources “No doubt that the competent police authorities will act strictly in accordance to law,” the Bench ordered.
The apex court further refused the petitioner’s plea to lay down guidelines to prevent recurrence of “such arbitrary exercise of police power”.
During the hearing, the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that Mr.
Suri was “hypersensitive”.
The Ghaziabad Police was acting on a warrant and tracked the alleged suspect to a tower within 200 yards of Mr.
Suri’s premises.
The police team had followed procedure and, accompanied by two officers from the Nizamuddin East Police Station, had rung the residence bell.
Once informed that no such suspect was there, they had left.
“If this petition is entertained, the floodgates would open.
There is a statutory mechanism.
Everybody has to follow the procedure,” the State counsel submitted.
‘Unusually large’ contingent of police Mr.
Awasthi countered that an “unusually large” contingent of Ghaziabad Police had arrived at his client’s residential colony in a convoy of 15 to 16 police vehicles at around 12.45 a.m. on the intervening night of August 22-23 to raid his house.
Mr.
Suri submitted that the whole thing was done in a “high-handed, unauthorised and intimidating manner”.
He said some of the members of the posse were in plain-clothes and did not furnish a search warrant.
The former Mayor said he was told by the police team that they had information that an accused in a double-murder case at Indirapuram (in Uttar Pradesh) was hiding in his premises.
“When the petitioner sought to ascertain the authority and warrant under which his residence was proposed to be searched, the police party failed to furnish any such document or satisfactory explanation.
Upon contacting the SHO, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, the petitioner was informed that the local police had only been apprised of the visit of the U.P.
Police team to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, and had no information regarding the particular premises proposed to be searched,” the petition has said.
Suri’s petition said he subsequently learnt that the U.P.
Police party had purportedly come pursuant to FIR No.
678/2026, Police Station Indirapuram, allegedly concerning Abhishek Upadhyay, and not any double-murder case as stated by the officer leading the raid.
Upadhyay, against whom the Ghaziabad Police had lodged a road-rage FIR, is already under the interim protection of the Supreme Court from any coercive action.
Supreme Court asks why U.P.
Police sought journalist’s digital data in road-rage probe “The manner and scale of the operation, coupled with the apparent disregard of the safeguards governing inter-State police action, disclose a concerted abuse of police authority calculated to overawe and coerce the petitioner, thereby directly threatening his life, personal liberty, dignity and constitutional rights,” Mr.
Suri’s petition said.
Awasthi had submitted on behalf of his client that the incident raised a larger constitutional rights question as to whether a police force of one State could enter the territorial jurisdiction of another State and attempt a search of a citizen’s residence at midnight without adherence to the safeguards of law.
