On Monday, September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to directly intervene in a deeply disturbing case involving allegations of sexual assault and brutal custodial torture of a 17-year-old boy by the Gujarat Police. The apex court instead directed the petitioner to pursue the matter through the High Court.
During the proceedings, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed sympathy for the victim but questioned the petitioner’s legal strategy, asking, ‘We have all sympathies for you, but why did you not approach the High Court first?’
The counsel representing the victim’s family highlighted the extreme brutality allegedly inflicted upon the minor during his detention.
The bench firmly reiterated its stance, questioning, ‘Our primary concern is, why was the High Court not approached under Article 226 of the Constitution?’
The lawyer had sought a specific directive for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to form a medical board. This board would be tasked with providing a comprehensive report to the court detailing the nature and extent of the minor’s injuries.
To this, the bench inquired if the High Court was incapable of issuing such an order, and the lawyer conceded that the High Court indeed possessed the jurisdiction to address that particular request.
Despite the procedural query, the counsel broadened the scope of the argument, referencing other similar cases and stating, ‘Beyond the specifics of this incident, the larger issue involves the nationwide implications of minors being unlawfully detained and subjected to torture while in police custody.’
However, the bench remained steadfast, advising, ‘You must first approach the High Court, and if your matter is not addressed there, you may return to us, and we will reconsider your request.’ Furthermore, the Supreme Court also turned down the petitioner’s plea for AIIMS, New Delhi, to submit a report on the minor’s injuries.
Agreeing to take the case to the High Court, the counsel then urgently appealed to the Supreme Court to issue an order for the immediate preservation of CCTV footage from the Botad town police station, a critical piece of evidence in the alleged incident.
Expressing a significant apprehension, he stated, ‘My concern today is that by the time I can formally approach the High Court, the crucial CCTV footage may very well be destroyed.’
The bench responded by noting, ‘It will not be destroyed if you approach the High Court promptly,’ and subsequently granted permission to withdraw the current plea.
The original petition, lodged by the alleged victim’s sister, had sought various forms of relief. This included the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprised of officers from outside the Gujarat cadre, with the investigation to be conducted under the direct oversight of the Supreme Court.
As an alternative, the petition also requested a court-monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
According to the plea, the minor was apprehended on August 18 by police officers from Botad town in Gujarat. He was reportedly taken into custody on suspicion of involvement in the theft of gold and cash.
Further allegations detailed in the plea asserted that the boy was held in illegal custody from August 19 to 28. During this period, he was allegedly subjected to brutal beatings by police officers at the station and also endured sexual assault.
The petition specifically highlighted serious procedural violations, claiming that the minor was neither presented before the Juvenile Justice Board nor a magistrate within the mandated 24 hours of his arrest. Additionally, the police failed to conduct a crucial medical examination following his apprehension.
Ultimately, the plea demanded the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, and other applicable laws, to thoroughly investigate the alleged ‘custodial torture and sexual violence’ against the minor.