The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking an FIR against Ghaziabad Police officials for allegedly conducting an illegal raid at his residence in search of journalist Abhishek Upadhyay.

The Court asked the petitioner to avail the regular statutory remedies seeking FIR instead of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution at the first instance. The Court also refused to entertain the alternate prayer in the petition seeking guidelines regarding inter-state police raids.

Giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies under the BNSS for FIR, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of the matter.

Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported on the allegations of donation theft in the Ayodhya Ram Temple, is facing an FIR by the Ghaziabad police in relation to an alleged road-rage incident. He was given interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court on August 25.

Farhad Suri has filed the present writ petition contending that on the intervening night of August 22/23, the Ghaziabad police entered his Delhi residence in search of Upadhyay without any warrant.

UP Additional Advocate General opposed the petition, contending that Article 32 cannot be directly invoked to seek an FIR without exhausting the statutory remedies. The law officer also denied that the search was illegal. "We were trying to arrest a gentleman...there was a proper GD entry...Delhi police officers simply rang the bell of this person...to find out if the person [Upadhyay] was residing there...when he [Farhad] said no, we simply left. We did not even enter his house," the UP AAG submitted. Referring to Section 44 BNSS, the State counsel said that the police was legally empowered to conduct the search, and added that it was carried out before the Supreme Court granted him interim protection. "The petitioner also has a duty to allow us to do our job. He is being hyper-sensitive," the AAG said, urging the Court not to entertain the Article 32 petition.

Advocate Anoop Awasthi, Suri's counsel, refuted the State's submissions, saying that a large contingent of police officers in about 15 vehicles reached his residence, and the GD entry was registered after the raid. He also sought the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution to lay down guidelines regarding inter-state police raids.

The bench plainly stated that it was not going to entertain the second prayer. As regards the first prayer, the Court asked the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police seeking FIR.

"The relief regarding direction to register FIR against police authorities of UP can very well be addressed if the petitioner approaches jurisdictional police station under S.175 BNSS. We have no reason to doubt that competent police will strictly act in accordance with law," the Court observed while disposing of the matter.

Case : FARHAD SURI Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH | W.P.(Crl.) No. 359/2026