PINJARA TANJILA ALTAFBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS., 2025
The Court followed the principle of subsidiarity under constitutional law where the High Courts must first be approached unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
16 September 2025
Judges
Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A 17-year-old boy was allegedly illegally detained and tortured by Gujarat Police (Botad District) between August 19–28, 2025, in connection with a theft case.
-
Allegations include brutal beatings, sexual assault, and denial of production before a Magistrate or the Juvenile Justice Board within 24 hours of arrest.
-
Family members, including the boy’s grandfather, were also allegedly subjected to custodial torture.
-
The minor was later shifted to Zydus Hospital, Ahmedabad, under critical condition: kidney damage, dialysis, temporary blindness, seizures, and ICU admission.
-
It was also alleged that officials made the minor and his family sign documents under duress, stating he fell from a bicycle.
-
A representation by the Minority Coordination Committee to the DGP demanding action was allegedly ignored.
-
The petitioner (minor's sister) approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking a CBI/SIT probe, urgent medical board, and preservation of CCTV footage.
Issues
-
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a direct writ petition under Article 32 in such custodial torture cases involving minors?
-
Whether the petitioner is entitled to urgent reliefs such as constitution of a medical board or preservation of CCTV footage without first approaching the High Court?
-
What remedies are available to the petitioner for alleged custodial violence and medical rights violations?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition at this stage.
-
The bench allowed the petitioner to withdraw the case with liberty to approach the concerned High Court.
-
Justice Vikram Nath stated: “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.”
-
Justice Sandeep Mehta added: “Our sympathy is with your case, but the proper way is to [first] go to the High Court.”
-
Advocate Rohin Bhatt (for the petitioner) agreed to approach the High Court but requested interim directions to:
-
Constitute a medical board of AIIMS doctors, and
-
Preserve CCTV footage of the police station.
-
-
The Court declined to issue such interim directions, with Justice Mehta remarking: “It won’t be destroyed if you go to the High Court timely.”
Held
-
The Supreme Court did not entertain the petition under Article 32 at this stage.
-
The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.
-
There is no interim relief was granted regarding medical board or preservation of CCTV footage.
-
The Court expressed sympathy, but insisted on following the hierarchical process, beginning with the High Court.
Analysis
-
The Court followed the principle of subsidiarity under constitutional law where the High Courts must first be approached unless there are exceptional circumstances.
-
Though grave allegations of custodial torture, sexual assault, and violation of juvenile rights were raised, the Supreme Court refrained from intervening at the initial stage.
-
The request for preservation of CCTV footage was not entertained, though this could have significant evidentiary implications.
-
The ruling places a responsibility on High Courts to act swiftly in such cases, especially when the life and dignity of a minor are involved.
-
The order preserves the right of the petitioner to return to the Supreme Court if the High Court fails to act or protect rights effectively.