The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea alleging custodial torture and sexual assault of a 17-year-old in Gujarat, asking the petitioner to first seek remedies before the High Court. The plea had sought an SIT or CBI probe, AIIMS medical report, and compensation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition filed by the brother of a 17-year-old minor boy who was allegedly tortured and sexually assaulted in police custody at Botad, Gujarat. The petitioner had sought an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) excluding Gujarat cadre police officers, or a court-monitored probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The plea also prayed for counselling and compensation for the minor victim.
The matter was listed before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court to Send Case Updates via WhatsApp from October 6, 2025
At the very outset, Justice Vikram Nath addressed the petitioner’s counsel and observed:
“We sympathize, but why not approach the High Court first?”
The counsel attempted to justify moving the Supreme Court directly and said:
“Because of the specific prayers, My Lords.”
The Bench pressed further. Justice Nath asked: “Which prayers can this Court grant that the High Court cannot?”
In reply, the lawyer referred to one of the key prayers in the petition:
“Prayer E directing AIIMS, New Delhi, to form a medical board and report on the minor’s injuries.”
The Bench, however, was not satisfied and noted:
“Couldn’t the High Court have granted this?”
The counsel conceded, explaining:
“Under Article 226(2), yes but the issue has pan India implications of minors being tortured.”
At this point, Justice Sandeep Mehta sought clarification and asked: “How many incidents are cited?”
The lawyer responded candidly:
“Two.”
The Court then remarked that such issues must first be raised before the High Court and added:
“You go to the high court and if the high court does not deal with your matter, you come back. We will consider your request.”
The petitioner had also expressed concern that vital CCTV footage from Botad town police station might be erased before the High Court could take up the case. The counsel submitted:
“Today, my concern is this. By the time I go to the high court, the CCTV footage may be destroyed.”
To this, the Bench assured:
“It won’t be destroyed if you go there timely.”
Thereafter, the counsel agreed to withdraw the petition. The Bench passed a short order, recording:
“Petition permitted to be withdrawn under Article 32, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court for remedies.”
The petition, filed by the victim’s sister, alleged that the 17-year-old was picked up by Botad police on August 18 on suspicion of involvement in a theft of gold and cash.
It claimed he was held in illegal custody between August 19 and August 28, during which he was brutally beaten and subjected to sexual assault.
The plea further alleged that the boy was never produced before the Juvenile Justice Board or any magistrate within 24 hours of detention, in violation of law. It also stated that the police failed to conduct his mandatory medical examination after arrest.
The petitioner had therefore asked for an FIR to be registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and other applicable laws to properly investigate the custodial torture and sexual violence.
While the Supreme Court did not enter into the merits of these allegations, it made it clear that the appropriate remedy lies before the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The case once again brings focus to the larger issue of custodial violence in India, particularly involving minors, even though the Court stopped short of issuing directions on this larger concern.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Custodial Torture
