Supreme Court Asks Ex-Mayor To Approach Delhi Police For FIR Against UP Police Over Raid For Journalist... - Live Law

**Supreme Court Directs Ex‑Mayor Farhad Suri to File FIR with Delhi Police Over Uttar Pradesh Police Raid**

New Delhi – The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former Delhi mayor Farhad Suri’s petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe and an FIR against Uttar Pradesh (UP) police for a “midnight raid” on his residence on 30 January. Suri, a senior leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, alleged that the UP police, acting on a complaint related to a journalist who had been staying at his home, entered his flat in the early hours without prior notice, seized documents and computers, and threatened to file a case. Claiming a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, Suri filed an extraordinary petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, asking the apex court to intervene directly and order an FIR against the UP officials.

In a concise order, a two‑judge bench held that the appropriate remedy lay in the ordinary criminal‑procedure route and that the jurisdiction to lodge an FIR for an alleged offence committed in Delhi rests with the Delhi police, not the Supreme Court. The bench directed Suri to approach the Delhi police under Section 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates a complaint to the jurisdictional police station for any cognizable offence. The court also declined to entertain the request for a CBI inquiry, noting that there was no indication of a systemic or inter‑state dimension that would warrant a central agency’s involvement.

Legal analysts said the decision underscores the court’s reluctance to bypass procedural safeguards even in politically sensitive matters. The Delhi Police, in a statement, said it would examine the complaint once filed and take action “as per law.” The UP police, meanwhile, defended the operation as a lawful raid in connection with a pending case against the journalist, asserting that it complied with procedural requirements. The episode has revived debate over inter‑state police powers, the protection of press freedom, and the avenues available to public figures seeking redress against alleged misuse of law‑enforcement authority.