Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors.
2025 INSC 272
W.P. (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018 & Connected Matters
Supreme Court of India
In Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the scope of arrest powers exercised under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), together with the constitutional and procedural safeguards governing such powers.
The judgment arose in the context of multiple challenges concerning the legality of arrests under fiscal statutes, the status of customs officers, the applicability of safeguards under criminal procedure; and the extent of judicial review over coercive action taken by customs and GST authorities.
Legislative Background
The Supreme Court discussed the earlier decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1, where offences under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act had been treated as non-cognizable and bailable in several situations.
The Court noted that subsequent to Om Prakash, Parliament amended Section 104 of the Customs Act through the Finance Acts of 2012, 2013 and 2019. By virtue of these amendments, certain specified offences were classified as cognizable and non-bailable. These included cases involving substantial duty evasion, prohibited goods, fraudulent drawback claims, and fraudulent import-export transactions.
The Court observed that the amendments were introduced specifically after Om Prakash and altered the statutory framework governing arrest powers under the Customs Act.
Whether Customs Officers Are Police Officers
One of the principal questions considered by the Court was whether customs officers are “police officers”. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled position that customs officers are not police officers and operate under a distinct statutory framework.
In this context, the Court referred to:
- State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, (1962) 3 SCR 338;
- Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 461;
- Illias v. Collector of Customs, (1969) 2 SCR 613;
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1;
- and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440.
The Court reiterated that customs officers do not possess all powers available to regular police authorities, particularly the power to submit a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Arrest Powers Under the Customs Act and CGST Act
The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme governing arrest powers under:
- Section 104 of the Customs Act; and
- Section 69 of the CGST Act.
The Court recognised that Parliament had consciously expanded arrest powers in relation to serious economic offences after the decision in Om Prakash. The Court ultimately upheld the statutory framework empowering customs authorities to arrest individuals in specified cognizable and non-bailable offences.
Constitutional and Procedural Safeguards
A substantial part of the judgment deals with the safeguards governing arrest under fiscal statutes. The Supreme Court held that although customs officers are not police officers, constitutional and procedural protections continue to apply to arrests effected under the Customs Act and GST laws.
The Court recognised:
- The obligation to communicate grounds of arrest;
- The requirement of maintaining proper arrest records and diaries;
- The right of the arrested person to inform relatives or nominated persons;
- The right to meet an advocate during interrogation;
- The obligation to ensure the health and safety of the arrested individual.
Requirement of “Reasons to Believe”
The Supreme Court also discussed the requirement of “reasons to believe” prior to arrest. Referring to Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court observed that the existence of material, formation of opinion on the basis of such material, and recording of reasons constitute important safeguards against arbitrary exercise of arrest powers. The Court further observed that arrests cannot be made mechanically or merely on suspicion.
Scope of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court also examined the scope of judicial scrutiny in matters involving arrest and investigation under economic statutes. The Court observed that judicial review remains available in appropriate cases to examine: whether statutory safeguards have been complied with; whether jurisdictional requirements for arrest exist; and whether arrest powers have been exercised lawfully.
At the same time, the Court observed that constitutional courts ordinarily ought not to interfere with investigations except in appropriate circumstances.
Final Conclusions of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the statutory provisions empowering arrest under the Customs Act and CGST Act are valid; customs officers are not police officers, arrest powers under fiscal statutes are nevertheless subject to constitutional and procedural safeguards; the requirement of “reasons to believe” is mandatory; and the legality of arrest remains open to judicial review.
Conclusion
The judgment in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India is a significant decision on the exercise of coercive powers under fiscal legislation. While upholding the statutory framework governing arrest under customs and GST laws, the Supreme Court simultaneously reiterated that such powers remain subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial scrutiny.
The decision therefore reinforces both the authority of enforcement agencies to investigate serious economic offences; and the obligation to exercise coercive powers within the framework of legality, procedural safeguards and constitutional accountability.
