RADHIKA AGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331 · Decided: 27-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA

cites 27 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331 : 2025 INSC 272
Radhika Agarwal 
v. 
Union of India and Others
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018)
27 February 2025
[Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI, M.M. Sundresh and  
Bela M. Trivedi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Challenge to the constitutional validity and the right of the authorized 
officers to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central 
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).
Headnotes†
Customs Act, 1962 – Finance Act, 2012 – Finance Act, 2013 – 
Finance Act, 2019 – ss.104(4), 104(6) – Central Goods and 
Services Tax Act, 2017 – ss.69, 70, 132 – Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 – ss.4, 5, 50; Chapter XII – Constitution of 
India – Articles 246-A, 21 22(1), 32, 226 – Om Prakash case 
held that the offences under the Customs Act were non-
cognizable and, therefore, the customs officers were required 
to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate before making an 
arrest – Subsequently, amendments made – Challenge to the 
constitutional validity and the right of the authorised officers 
under the Customs Act as well as the GST Acts to arrest: 
Held: [Per Sanjiv Khanna, CJI (for himself and M.M. 
Sundresh, J.)] Challenge to the amendments as well as provisions 
of the Customs Act, rejected – The amendments made to the 
Customs Act in 2012, 2013 and 2019 are substantive and were 
introduced to modify the application of Om Prakash case, which 
required a customs officer to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate 
before making an arrest – These amendments designated 
specified offences as cognizable and non-bailable, while also 
imposing certain preconditions and stipulations for making arrest – 
Petitioners’ reliance on Om Prakash case is misconceived as 
the statutory provisions have undergone amendments to bring 
them in consonance with the law of the land – Moreover, the 
* Author
1332
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
provisions themselves provide enough safeguards against arbitrary 
and wrongful arrests – Further, challenge to the vires of ss.69 
and 70 of the GST Acts is also rejected – Under Article 246-A 
of the Constitution, the Parliament has the power to make laws 
regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, enact provisions 
against tax evasion – The impugned provisions lay down the 
power to summon and arrest, powers necessary for the effective 
levy and collection of GST – A penalty or prosecution mechanism 
for the levy and collection of GST, and for checking its evasion, 
is a permissible exercise of legislative power – The GST Acts, in 
pith and substance, pertain to Article 246-A of the Constitution 
and the powers to summon, arrest and prosecute are ancillary 
and incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services 
tax – Therefore, challenge to the constitutional validity as also the 
right of the authorised officers under the Customs Act and the GST 
Acts to arrest are dismissed – The pre-conditions and when and 
how the power of arrest is to be exercised, elucidated and clarified. 
[Paras 22, 48, 60, 75, 77] – [Per Bela M. Trivedi, J. (Concurring)] 
When the legality of an arrest made under the Special Acts like 
Customs Act, GST Acts etc. is challenged, the Court should be 
extremely loath in exercising its power of judicial review – The 
safeguards provided in the Special Acts against the arrest of a 
person, are provided keeping in view the fundamental rights of 
life and personal liberty of a person enshrined in the Constitution 
of India – The safeguards are the requirement to have “material” 
in possession of the authorized officer, to form an opinion and 
record in writing the “reasons to believe” that the person arrested 
is guilty of an offence or has committed an offence as the case 
may be, under the provisions of the concerned Act, and the 
requirement to inform the person arrested, as soon as may be, 
of the grounds of arrest – There has to be due compliance of the 
Constitutional and Statutory mandates, whenever an arrest is made 
of a person under the Special Acts – Power of judicial review in 
cases of arrest under such Special Acts should be exercised very 
cautiously and in rare circumstances to balance individual liberty 
with the interest of justice and of the society at large – Any liberal 
approach in construing the stringent provisions of the Special Acts 
may frustrate the very purpose and objective of the Acts – The 
powers of judicial review may not be exercised unless there is 
manifest arbitrariness or gross violation or n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.