O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to be an Indian citizen who travelled from Dubai to Hyderabad by Indigo Flight No. 6E 1466 on 12.11.2025 and landed in Hyderabad in the early hours of 13.11.2025. On his arrival, CISF officials wrongfully detained him for several hours without authority of law and seized his baggage before handing it over to Customs authorities, and he was intercepted without being shown any written order or informed of grounds, and was taken by CISF personnel to a room under their control without involvement of any Customs officer.

1.1. It is stated, petitioner was detained by CISF personnel for over eight hours, during which he was not permitted to approach the Customs counter, not allowed to make any voluntary declaration, and not produced before any lawful authority, and was effectively held incommunicado without legal justification. During detention, CISF personnel opened his baggage, inspected contents, prepared inventory lists and purported to seize articles, and the document dated 13.11.2025 styled as ‘seizure lists’ bear only signatures of CISF personnel including Ankit Kumar SI/EXE CISF Unit ASG Hyderabad, with no participation of any Customs officer.

1.2. Petitioner states that only on 14.11.2025, he was served with summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) by Respondent No.3, issued by Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, RGIA, showing that Customs authorities were not involved at the time of initial detention and seizure, and thereafter a detailed seizure list and detention receipt were issued on 14-11-2025 recording detention of electronic items including mobile phones and accessories. He therefore is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 36349 of 2025 seeking direction to Customs authorities to consider his representation for release of goods, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 02-12-2025 directing Customs officials to consider his request expeditiously.

1.3. According to petitioner, CISF has no authority under the Act to detain passengers, search baggage or effect seizure for customs violations, as its functions under the CISF Act, 1968, are limited to airport security, therefore, action of CISF is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Petitioner states that despite presence of customs authorities at RGIA, no officer intervened during the eight-hour detention, and that subsequent acceptance of goods seized by CISF and issuance of summons only on 14.11.2025 indicates procedural impropriety, dereliction of duty and attempt to retrospectively validate unauthorized seizure, warranting independent enquiry. Detention by CISF without authority and without informing grounds is without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

1.4. Petitioner states that the purported seizure on 13.11.2025 is null and void as it was conducted entirely by CISF personnel who are not proper officers under Section 2(34) of the Act and mandatory safeguards under Sections 100 to 110 were not followed, and records show that seizure was conducted solely by CISF. Summons issued by customs on 14.11.2025 cannot cure the illegality of the earlier unauthorized seizure by CISF and any retrospective validation is impermissible in law. Detention for over eight hours without authority, without informing grounds and without producing before any lawful authority violates his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

1.5. Petitioner states that he was deprived of his statutory right under Section 77 of the Act to make voluntary declaration before Customs due to unlawful intervention by CISF. The conduct of Customs officers in not intervening during the illegal detention and seizure, accepting seized goods thereafter and issuing summons only on the next day indicates dereliction of duty or conscious acquiescence, requiring independent enquiry to ascertain full facts.

2. In the counter, Respondent No.2 – CISF states that on 13.11.2025, petitioner holding Pass