Supreme Court Limits “Power of Arrest” Under GST and Customs Acts: Analysis of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India

Introduction

The landmark judgment of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, delivered by the Supreme Court on February 27, 2025, significantly transformed the landscape of arrest power under GST and customs Act 1962. To fully appreciate the impact and reasoning of this decision, it is essential to understand the legal precedents that shaped the Court’s reasoning. This article provides a detailed examination of the key judicial decisions referenced in the judgment.

Constitutional Interpretations on Customs and Tax Officers’ Powers

State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962)

The foundational question of whether customs officers are police officers was answered negatively in this early case. The facts involved Barkat Ram, an engine driver who was caught smuggling gold bars from Pakistan and made confessional statements to customs officials. The Supreme Court held that customs officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

This distinction has profound implications for the admissibility of confessions made to customs officers, as confessions to police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Radhika Agarwal judgment reaffirmed this long-standing distinction.

Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal (1969)

This Constitution Bench judgment further cemented the distinction that customs officers are not police officers. The Court distinguished between the powers of police officers and those of customs officers, noting that the latter do not have all the powers of investigation possessed by the former.

Illias v. Collector of Customs (1969)

Another Constitution Bench decision that upheld the view that customs officers are not police officers, forming part of a consistent judicial approach spanning decades. The Court in Radhika Agarwal referred to this as part of “a line of decisions” establishing this critical distinction.

Modern Reaffirmation and Elaboration

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021)

This landmark case addressed the admissibility of confessional statements recorded by officers under the NDPS Act. The majority judgment in Tofan Singh identified specific criteria for determining when an officer can be deemed a police officer:

“An officer can be deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act: (i) if the officer has all the powers of a police officer qua investigation, which includes the power to file a police report under Section 173 CrPC, (ii) the power to file a police report under Section 173 CrPC is an essential ingredient of the power of a police officer, and (iii) the power to file a police report under Section 173 CrPC has to be conferred by statute”.

The Radhika Agarwal judgment cited this passage, emphasizing that customs officers lack the power to file reports under Section 173 CrPC, thus distinguishing them from police officers.

Om Prakash and Another v. Union of India and Another (2011)

This significant decision established that offenses under the Customs and Central Excise Acts are bailable when they carry a punishment of less than 3 years. The Radhika Agarwal judgment noted that Om Prakash “was pronounced on 30.09.2011 and held the field for more than 12 years” and that “the legislature has accepted the ratio of the said decision and made specific amendments”.

This case’s reasoning proceeds on interpreting Sections 4 and 5 of the Code and holds that Section 155 and other provisions of Chapter XII of the Code are applicable to customs and excise officers, albeit with limitations.

Procedural Safeguards and Rights of Arrestees

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

This watershed judgment addressed custodial violence and deaths, establishing comprehensive guidelines for safeguarding the rights of individuals in police custody. In response to a letter highlighting custodial violence, the Supreme Court established specific procedural requirements for arrests, including:

• The right to have a relative informed about the arrest
• The obligation to wear identification badges during arrest
• The maintenance of arrest records
• Medical examination of arrestees

These guidelines have been incorporated into the procedural framework established in Radhika Agarwal for arrest  Power under GST and Customs Acts.

Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Another (1994)

This case addressed whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to authorize detention under Section 167(2) CrPC for a person arrested under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). The Court held that:

1. A Magistrate has the power under Section 167(2) of CrPC to authorize the detention of a person arrested under the Customs Act in customs officer custody
2. Customs officers must maintain detailed records similar to police case diaries, including:
   • Name of the informant
   • Name of the alleged offender
   • Nature of information received
   • Time of arrest
   • Seizure details
   • Statements recorded during detection of the offense

These requirements were incorporated into the procedural framework established in Radhika Agarwal.

Poolpandi and Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others (1992)

This case examined whether a person is entitled to the aid of counsel when questioned during investigation under the Customs Act or FERA. The Radhika Agarwal judgment clarified that arrestees have the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, though not throughout the entire process, drawing from principles established in Poolpandi.

Recent Jurisprudence on Arrest Power Under GST and Customs Act

Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025)

This recent case laid down requirements for the Enforcement Directorate to legally arrest someone under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Radhika Agarwal judgment explicitly builds upon principles established in Arvind Kejriwal, establishing a parallel three-prong test for arrests under GST and Customs Acts:

1. Material must be in possession of the customs officer
2. “Reasons to believe” must be recorded in writing before arrest
3. The person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest immediately

The Court in Radhika Agarwal stated: “We have cautioned in Arvind Kejriwal how the unbridled exercise of the power to arrest without a warrant can result in arbitrariness and errors in decision making process. A similar error made by a customs officer can lead to a frustration of the constitutional and statutory rights of the arrestee”.

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024)

These recent cases were cited as part of the evolving jurisprudence on arrest, highlighting the Supreme Court’s continued engagement with protecting individual liberties while balancing the state’s legitimate interests in enforcement.

Bail Jurisprudence and Procedural Protections

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab (1980)

This landmark case on anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC established that courts should not place undue restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had erred in putting strict limitations on granting anticipatory bail.

While not directly about tax arrests, this case’s principles on personal liberty and judicial discretion likely influenced the Radhika Agarwal judgment’s approach to balancing enforcement interests with constitutional rights.

Rights During Investigation and Interrogation

Nandini Satpati v. P.L. Dani and Another (1978)

This case dealt with the rights of accused persons during interrogation, particularly the right against self-incrimination. The principles established here likely influenced the Radhika Agarwal judgment’s recognition of the right of an arrestee to have access to legal counsel during (though not throughout) interrogation by customs or GST officers.

Conclusion: The Tapestry of Legal Precedent in Radhika Agarwal

The Radhika Agarwal judgment doesn’t operate in isolation but represents the culmination of decades of jurisprudential evolution on arrest power under GST and Customs Act, procedural safeguards, and the balance between revenue collection and individual rights. The Court’s careful consideration of precedents spanning from 1962 to 2025 demonstrates its commitment to maintaining doctrinal consistency while adapting to changing circumstances.

What emerges from this tapestry of precedents is a nuanced approach that:

1. Maintains the distinction that customs and GST officers are not police officers
2. Nonetheless applies appropriate procedural safeguards from criminal procedure to tax arrests
3. Establishes a clear three-prong test for legitimate arrests
4. Recognizes the potential for coercion in tax matters and creates protections against it
5. Balances the legitimate interests of tax enforcement with constitutional protections

By examining these precedents, we gain deeper insight into the reasoning and implications of the Radhika Agarwal judgment, which will undoubtedly serve as a cornerstone for future cases involving arrest powers under special economic laws.