Supreme Court Issues Notice To Haryana Govt On Woman Lawyer's Plea Alleging Sexual Assault By Gurugram Police Officials

The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice on the plea of a woman advocate alleging that she was sexually assaulted and beaten by officials of a Gurugram police station when she went there alongwith her client in connection with a matrimonial case.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani (for the petitioner-woman advocate).

The State of Haryana, Haryana Police and the State House Officer of the concerned police station are the respondents to whom notice has been issued.

On the last date, the Court had asked Hingorani to produce a copy of the FIR lodged by Gurugram police officials against the petitioner. Yesterday, the senior counsel produced the said FIR. Going through the same, Justice Mishra remarked,

"Why did you (petitioner) go to the police station? [This is] what happens when the lawyer visits police station...lawyer should be confined to the Court!".

In response, Hingorani explained the circumstances under which the petitioner accompanied her client to the Gurugram police station. "What is worrying is the kind of behavior by the police officers in the thana (police station)", she urged.

Further, the senior counsel asserted that the contents of the FIR lodged against the petitioner are absolutely incorrect and "unbelievable". "In a police station, a lady lawyer would be assaulting a police officer, is absolutely unbelievable!", she submitted.

Taking objection to the use of the word "unbelievable", Justice Masih remarked, "The word you used...'unbelievable'...is wrong...it may not have happened, that's a different aspect. Things have changed altogether now. It's not that simple".

Subsequently, Hingorani argued that the Zero FIR lodged by the petitioner in Delhi has been transferred to the very same police station where the alleged incident happened. "The very police station/officers who are there are going to investigate the case where I have made complaints against them! That's not possible."

In response to a Court query, she also stated that the petitioner is seeking transfer of the cases out of Haryana, to any independent agency or to Delhi/Uttar Pradesh police. Ultimately, the bench issued notice.

Notably, Justice Mishra commented during the hearing that the Court can't interfere only because the petitioner is a lawyer. On this, Hingorani said that she is not seeking any concession on that ground. "I am talking of a lady who had gone to protect the interest of her client. I have not used the word lawyer, and I am not asking for any concession on that ground".

Though a prayer was made for an order restraining coercive action against the petitioner, the Court did not pass any such direction. "Why can't you apply for anticipatory bail?" questioned Justice Mishra.

Background

The petitioner, a practicing advocate and Executive Member of Tis Hazari Bar Association, seeks transfer of cases lodged by and against her qua Gurugram police officials to any independent agency (like CBI) or the Delhi police. She further demands disciplinary action against Gurugram police officials involved in her "illegal detention and manhandling".

As per allegations, on 21.05.2025, she went to Sector 50, Gurugram police station alongwith one of her clients in connection with a matrimonial case. When the client was about to submit a written complaint against his wife, the police officials allegedly obstructed him from doing so and assaulted the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that two male officers at the police station sexually assaulted her, that she was illegally detained, and that she was beaten by lady officers. Allegedly, the police officials also gave the petitioner some liquid to drink, but she refused to consume it.

Apprehending further harassment, false prosecution and physical harm by the Gurugram police officials, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer/clubbing of 3 FIRs as well as police protection.

Case Title: AS v. STATE OF HARYANA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 235/2025