A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde said: "How many states' crime record have you studied?" The bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, warned the petitioner-in-person advocate C.R. Jaya Sukin that it may impose heavy cost, citing the nature of the plea. 

Irked by continuous persistence by Sukin to hear his arguments, the Chief Justice said: "Have you studied the crime record of other states, where is the research?" Sukin replied that in comparison with national statistics, almost 30 per cent crimes have been reported in Uttar Pradesh. 

Citing data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Sukin contended that he has done his research and the crime graph has gone up in Uttar Pradesh. 

Not entertaining this line of argument for imposition of President's rule in UP, the bench told Sukin, "Show us on what basis you are saying this?" After a brief hearing in the matter, the Chief Justice said there is no research to support the claims of the petitioner and also he failed to establish that his fundamental right has been violated. While dismissing the plea, the bench said it will impose heavy costs, if the petitioner continues to argue. 

The PIL, citing NCRB data released in January 2020, said a case of rape is registered with the Uttar Pradesh police every two hours while a crime against a child is reported every 90 minutes in the state. "That report claims that 4,322 cases of rape were reported in 2018, with almost 12 taking place daily and the state also recorded 59,445 crimes against women with 162 being reported every day, which indicates a surge of 7 per cent over 2017 when 56,011 crimes against women - 153 per day - were registered," contended the PIL. 

The petitioner urged the Supreme Court to issue direction, particularly the nature of writ, for imposition of Article 356 of the Constitution of India in Uttar Pradesh immediately.