‘High Courts are very Proactive’: Supreme Court refuses to entertain Gurugram Child Rape plea under Article 32

In a petition seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged rape of a four-year-old girl in Gurugram, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea at this stage, directing the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court instead. The matter, raised under Article 32, sought investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team, citing alleged inaction by local police, bringing into focus the Court’s consistent stance on procedural hierarchy and appropriate forums.

The controversy arose after the victim’s family, through Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, urged the top court for urgent intervention, alleging serious lapses in the police investigation. It was submitted that despite the child’s statement being recorded before a Magistrate, no arrests had been made, crucial evidence like CCTV footage had not been secured, and the crime scene remained unprotected.

Emphasizing the gravity of the offence, counsel argued that intervention by the apex court was necessary to send a strong message. However, the Bench questioned why the High Court had not been approached first, pointing out the availability of an effective alternative remedy.

The Court remained firm on the procedural route, with the Chief Justice observing that the High Court was “very proactive” and fully competent to deal with such issues. The Bench declined to bypass the established judicial hierarchy despite the seriousness of the allegations, indicating that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 should not be invoked as a first resort in such cases.

Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition and asked the petitioners to move the High Court.

Case Title: Dnm Trustee Service Private Ltd Vs. Victoria Enterprises Limited and Ors

Case No.: Interim Application No. 7964 of 2025

Coram: Hob’ble Mr. Justice Gauri Godse

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Chirag Mody, Adv. Parag Kabadi, Adv. Drishti Gudhaka,

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Manish N. Jain, Adv. Ritu G. Gehlot, Adv. S.M. Jain

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com