Security personnel perform lawful preventive checks under their parent legislation; subsequent seizure of prohibited goods by empowered Customs officers after a formal handover satisfies statutory requirements and does not invalidate the proceedings.

O R D E R:

Petitioner is an Indian citizen holding Passport No. AH763963 and travelled from Abu Dhabi to Hyderabad by Etihad Airways Flight No. EY358 on 11.11.2025. After disembarking and collecting baggage, he proceeded towards the Customs counter to voluntarily declare electronic goods and pay applicable duty in compliance with the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Baggage Rules. It is stated, before reaching the customs counter, he was intercepted by CISF personnel without any written order or disclosure of grounds, and was taken away without involvement of any Customs officer and confined in a CISF-controlled room for over eight hours, during which he was not permitted to approach the Customs counter, make any voluntary declaration, or be produced before any lawful authority, thereby being held without legal justification.

1.1. It is stated, during such detention, CISF personnel opened the baggage, inspected contents, prepared inventory lists, and purported to seize the articles through a document dated 11.11.2025 styled as ‘Seizure Lists, signed only by CISF personnel including ASI/Exe U. Salam, L/HC/GD Kavithra, C/GD B. Balakrishna and others, without participation of any Customs officer, and the seizure memo demonstrates that entire process was conducted solely by CISF. It is further stated, only on 12.11.2025, summons under Section 108 of the Act was issued by the Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, RGIA (Respondent No.3), evidencing that Customs authorities were not involved at the time of detention and seizure.

1.2. According to petitioner, CISF has no authority under the Act to detain passengers, search or examine baggage, or effect seizures for customs violations, as its functions under the CISF Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the 1968 Act’) are confined to airport security, rendering its actions ultra vires and unconstitutional. It is stated, serious concerns arise regarding the conduct of Customs officials, as no Customs officer intervened during the eight-hour detention despite their presence at RGIA, and subsequent acceptance of goods seized by CISF along with issuance of summons on the next day indicates procedural impropriety, dereliction of duty, and possible attempt to retrospectively validate an illegal seizure, warranting an independent enquiry.

1.3. It is stated, the action of CISF in detaining the deponent and seizing baggage are without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act, and are therefore void. The purported seizure dated 11.11.2025 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 the mandatory safeguards under Sections 100 to 110 of the Act were completely bypassed. The subsequent summons issued by Customs on 12.11.2025 cannot cure or validate the illegality of the prior unauthorized seizure conducted by CISF, as retrospective validation of illegal acts is impermissible in law.

1.4. Petitioner contends that detention by CISF for over eight hours without authority, without informing grounds, and without production before any lawful authority violates the deponent’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He was deprived of the statutory right under Section 77 of the Act to make a voluntary declaration before the Customs counter due to the illegal intervention of CISF. The conduct of Customs officers, including failure to intervene during the illegal detention and seizure, subsequent acceptance of seized goods, and delayed