The Supreme Court refused to hear Waiz Khan's plea against alleged unauthorised entry by UP ATS personnel. The bench said such fundamental rights claims should ordinarily be examined first by the Allahabad High Court.
Newdelhi,Oct 13, 2026 18:20 IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea alleging that personnel of the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad entered the petitioner's residence without wearing proper uniforms or displaying identification. The bench said the petitioner should first seek relief from the Allahabad High Court.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it was not inclined to hear the matter at the first instance as petitioner Waiz Khan had directly moved the top court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The court dismissed the plea, while giving him the liberty to approach the high court.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that Article 32 gave every citizen the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. "If I am coming under Article 32, the Supreme Court can't (shy away)," the counsel said. Justice Bagchi, however, said Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution provide overlapping jurisdiction in matters involving alleged violations of fundamental rights, and that the court of first instance should ordinarily be allowed to examine such allegations.
Justice Bagchi said, "We would always prefer a court of first instance to take cognisance of violation of fundamental rights." The petitioner's counsel also referred to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in D K Basu vs State of West Bengal, which laid down safeguards against custodial abuse and illegal arrest. Justice Bagchi, however, pointed to the remedies available before the high court in cases involving alleged violations of personal liberty.
The counsel maintained that the petitioner had raised the issue of how ATS personnel could enter his residence without displaying badges or proper identification. The Chief Justice asked why the petitioner had not approached the high court with these allegations. The counsel continued to argue that an alleged violation of fundamental rights was, by its nature, a constitutional issue requiring the Supreme Court's intervention under Article 32. The bench then said, "No case to entertain the petition made out. Dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the high court," effectively closing the matter while allowing the petitioner to move the Allahabad High Court.
- Ends