A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The present judgment in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018 & Connected Matters, decided on 27 February 2025, examines the constitutional and statutory contours of the power of arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Supreme Court revisited the legal position emerging from Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1, particularly in light of subsequent legislative amendments introduced in 2012, 2013, and 2019. The Court declined to reopen the ratio of Om Prakash, holding that Parliament had consciously accepted and modified the legal framework through statutory amendments.
The decision clarifies the classification of offences as cognizable or non-cognizable and bailable or non-bailable under amended Section 104 of the Customs Act. It further harmonises procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with arrest powers under fiscal statutes. The Court emphasized constitutional protections under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Drawing guidance from Deepak Mahajan, Tofan Singh, and Arvind Kejriwal, the Court mandated adherence to statutory safeguards including recording of reasons to believe, communication of grounds of arrest, maintenance of case diaries, and judicial review of arrest legality.
The judgment significantly strengthens procedural fairness in fiscal prosecutions. It reiterates that economic offences do not dilute constitutional guarantees.
Keywords: Customs Act, Arrest Powers, Cognizable Offence, Article 21, Procedural Safeguards, Judicial Review, GST Act.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others
ii) Case Number
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018 & Connected Matters
iii) Judgement Date
27 February 2025
iv) Court
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum
Bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna
vi) Author
Hon’ble Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna
vii) Citation
2025 INSC 272
viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962
Sections 41, 41B, 41D, 50, 50A, 55A, 155, 167, 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
Relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case
None expressly overruled. Om Prakash ratio reaffirmed with contextual interpretation.
x) Related Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Taxation Law, Economic Offences, Procedural Law.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The litigation arose from challenges to the power of arrest exercised by customs and GST officers. Petitioners questioned arbitrary arrests without procedural safeguards. The controversy stemmed from interpretation of Section 104 of the Customs Act. The earlier decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1 classified many offences as non-cognizable and bailable. Parliament subsequently amended the statute. The 2012, 2013 and 2019 amendments altered the landscape.
The Court examined whether arrest powers required prior judicial sanction. It also analysed interplay between fiscal statutes and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners argued violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court approached the issue from constitutional perspective. It stressed that deprivation of liberty demands strict statutory compliance. The judgment reflects a balance between revenue interests and civil liberties.
The Court clarified that legislative amendments were deliberate. Parliament partially accepted the ratio of Om Prakash. Certain offences were declared cognizable and non-bailable. Others remained non-cognizable and bailable. This structured classification became central to the decision.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Multiple writ petitions challenged arrests under the Customs Act and GST Act. Petitioners alleged misuse of arrest powers. They contended that arrests occurred without compliance with safeguards. Some were detained despite offences being non-cognizable. Others alleged absence of recorded reasons to believe.
The cases were clubbed due to common legal questions. Petitioners sought declaration that customs officers are akin to police officers. They claimed mandatory compliance with Chapter XII of the CrPC. They also sought protection against coercive action.
The Union defended statutory authority under amended provisions. It argued that specified offences exceeding monetary thresholds were cognizable. It relied upon amendments post-Om Prakash. The matter thus required constitutional and statutory interpretation.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether offences under amended Section 104 of the Customs Act are cognizable and non-bailable.
ii) Whether customs officers are police officers.
iii) Whether safeguards under the CrPC apply to customs arrests.
iv) Whether reasons to believe must be furnished to arrestee.
v) Whether arrest orders are subject to judicial review.
F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Petitioners submitted that customs officers function like police. They exercise arrest and investigation powers. Hence procedural safeguards under Chapter XII of CrPC must strictly apply.
They relied upon Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1. They argued that offences remain non-cognizable unless expressly declared otherwise. They contended arrest without warrant violates Section 155(2) CrPC. They also invoked Article 21.
Petitioners relied upon Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. They argued statements to customs officers should attract evidentiary safeguards. They emphasized liberty jurisprudence from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416. They urged mandatory supply of grounds of arrest.
They further cited Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248. They argued that reasons to believe must be furnished. Without disclosure, judicial review becomes illusory.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Respondent submitted that Parliament amended the statute consciously. Section 104(4) declares specified offences cognizable. Section 104(6) declares specified offences non-bailable.
They argued customs officers are not police officers. They relied upon Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 461 and Illias v. Collector of Customs, (1969) 2 SCR 613. They contended evidentiary distinction is settled.
They also cited Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440. They argued that Section 167 CrPC applies to customs arrests. Magistrates may authorise custody. Thus procedural safeguards already exist.
They submitted that economic offences threaten national revenue. Stringent powers are justified. However they accepted compliance with constitutional safeguards.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Section 104(4), Customs Act declares specified offences cognizable.
ii) Section 104(6), Customs Act classifies certain offences non-bailable.
iii) Sections 4 and 5 CrPC preserve application of procedural law.
iv) Section 41B CrPC mandates arrest memorandum.
v) Section 41D CrPC grants right to meet advocate.
vi) Section 50A CrPC requires informing relative.
vii) Article 22(1), Constitution mandates communication of grounds.
I) PRECEDENTS ANALYSED BY COURT
The Court examined Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1. It held offences were non-cognizable and bailable pre-amendment.
It relied on Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440. It held Section 167 CrPC applies to customs arrests.
It reaffirmed Tofan Singh, (2021) 4 SCC 1. Customs officers are not police officers under Section 25 Evidence Act.
It referred to Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674. It harmonised special statutes with CrPC.
It relied on Arvind Kejriwal, (2025) 2 SCC 248. It mandated furnishing reasons to believe.
J) JUDGEMENT
a) Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that amendments to Section 104 are decisive. Specified offences are cognizable. Others remain non-cognizable.
Customs officers are not police officers. However procedural safeguards of CrPC apply where not inconsistent.
Reasons to believe must be recorded. Grounds of arrest must be furnished. Judicial review is permissible.
Arrest is drastic power. It must be exercised sparingly. Liberty under Article 21 prevails.
b) Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasised that economic offences do not dilute constitutional guarantees. It advised strict compliance with diary maintenance under Section 172 CrPC.
c) Guidelines
Arresting officer must record reasons to believe in writing.
Grounds of arrest must be supplied promptly.
Arrest memo under Section 41B CrPC mandatory.
Relative must be informed under Section 50A CrPC.
Accused may meet advocate under Section 41D CrPC.
Magistrate must verify compliance upon production.
Judicial review available against arbitrary arrest.
K) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment reinforces constitutional supremacy. It harmonises fiscal enforcement with civil liberties. It clarifies legislative intent post amendments. It strengthens transparency in arrest procedure. It ensures judicial scrutiny. It affirms that liberty is non-negotiable even in economic offences.
L) REFERENCES
a) Important Cases Referred
i) Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1
ii) Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440
iii) Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1
iv) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
v) Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248
b) Important Statutes Referred
i) Customs Act, 1962
ii) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
iii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
iv) Constitution of India
