Back
The has declined to entertain a petition alleging that officials subjected three individuals to torture during interrogation, ruling that the matter properly falls under the court’s because the primary challenge concerns customs summons.
A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao held that the petitioners’ challenge to summons issued under , is the , and that the of human rights violations do not shift the case to the . The court observed that the petitioners had not made any prior complaint about the alleged torture to any authority, including the , which confirmed it had received no such grievance.
The petitioners—Dilip Pujara and two others—had approached the High Court seeking an independent investigation into what they described as torture inflicted by DRI officials at the agency’s Kolkata office on . They claimed the officials forced them to execute an affidavit and declaration under duress, and that they were compelled to pay ₹6 crore under protest on September 18, purportedly on account of evaded duty. The petition also sought preservation of CCTV footage from the DRI office and a declaration that the statements, affidavit, and declaration obtained were invalid and could not be relied upon.
Takes Precedence
The DRI and the Union of India raised a , arguing that the petition fell within of the High Court’s , which deals with revenue and tax matters. The petitioners countered that the prayers concerning alleged torture and preservation of CCTV footage brought the case within the , which covers matters not specifically assigned elsewhere.
Justice Krishna Rao, after examining the summons and the pleadings, found that the petition’s “main challenge” was to the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. “Thus, it cannot be said that there is an overlapping between two Groups matter,” the judge held. The court therefore declined to hear the petition, directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate bench.
The ruling underscores the procedural rigidity of the High Court’s system, where the nature of the primary legal challenge determines the division that will hear the case, even when allegations of constitutional or human rights violations are also raised.
No Prior Complaint Recorded
A significant factor in the court’s decision was the absence of any contemporaneous complaint about the alleged torture. Justice Krishna Rao noted that the petitioners had not lodged a complaint with any authority immediately after the incident. The informed the court that it had received no complaint regarding the matter. Furthermore, a reply sent by the petitioners to the DRI’s Assistant Director on , made no mention of torture during the search or interrogation.
The court did not examine whether the torture allegations were true or whether the summons were valid. It simply found that the petition was not maintainable before the bench hearing it due to the allocation, leaving those substantive questions open for determination by the correct bench.
What Happens Next
With the court’s order, the petitioners are at liberty to file their case before the appropriate division of the —the revenue bench—which will then decide whether to entertain the petition and rule on the merits of the summons challenge and the accompanying torture allegations. The order does not affect the petitioners’ right to pursue other remedies, including a fresh complaint to the or criminal proceedings, if any.
The case highlights the procedural hurdles litigants may face when a petition combines issues that ostensibly belong to different categories. For legal practitioners, it serves as a reminder to carefully draft petitions to clearly identify the primary cause of action and the corresponding division to avoid preliminary objections on jurisdiction.
The Union of India was represented by and , while Respondent No. 10 was represented by . No order was made on the merits of the torture allegations or the validity of the customs summons, leaving those matters for the appropriate bench to address.
