Supreme Court dismisses former Delhi Mayor’s plea against ‘midnight raid’ by UP Police - The Hindu

**Supreme Court Dismisses Former Delhi Mayor’s Petition Over Midnight Raid by Uttar Pradesh Police**

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Farhad Suri, the former mayor of Delhi, seeking a direction to register a First‑Information Report (FIR) against the Uttar Pradesh (UP) police for a “midnight raid” on his Delhi residence. The five‑judge bench also turned down Suri’s request for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the police action. Instead, the Court directed Suri to approach the Delhi Police under Section 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the local police to investigate offences alleged to have been committed within their territorial jurisdiction.

The raid, carried out in the early hours of February 24, was ostensibly linked to an ongoing investigation by the UP police into the disappearance of a journalist in the state. UP officials entered Suri’s home in South Delhi without a warrant, seizing documents and electronic devices. Suri contended that the intrusion violated his fundamental rights, amounted to an overreach of UP’s jurisdiction, and was intended to intimidate him because of his past political affiliations. In his petition, he argued that the Delhi police had failed to file an FIR despite his complaint, and that a CBI inquiry was necessary to ensure an impartial investigation.

In its order, the Supreme Court emphasized that a petition under Article 32 is a remedy of last resort and is appropriate only when there is a clear violation of a fundamental right that cannot be remedied by any other court. The bench observed that the appropriate forum for Suri’s grievance is the Delhi Police, which has the authority to register an FIR and investigate any alleged wrongdoing within the capital. By directing Suri to invoke Section 175, the Court reaffirmed the principle of territorial jurisdiction and signaled that the matter should proceed through the regular criminal‑law process rather than through extraordinary constitutional intervention.