2025 (7) TMI 327 - HC - GST

Detenue held beyond 24-hour limit violating Article 22 rights, officials obstructed warrant officer proceedings

HC found detenue was held in illegal custody by respondents beyond constitutionally mandated 24-hour period, violating Article 22 fundamental rights. ... Recovery of husband-the detenue, who had been in the illegal custody of respondents No. 2 and 3 since 04.06.2025 - illegal custody - non-production of detenue before the competent Court within the stipulated 24 hours - HELD THAT:- The accuracy and integrity of this document is attested - Further, as per the report of the Warrant Officer, the detenue remained in custody of respondents No.2 and 3 since 12:02 PM on 04.06.2025. It is evident that the detenue was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at 9:25 PM on 05.06.2025 i.e. beyond the stipulated period of 24 hours which is in direct contravention of his fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India - However, before passing any orders, an opportunity is afforded to respondents No. 2 and 3 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them for snatching papers from the Warrant Officer and obstructing him from performing his official duty. This Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to such recalcitrant misconduct depicting a blatant disregard for the rule of law. Allowing such lawless to continue unchecked would undermine the authority and dignity of the justice administration mechanism. The respondent No. 3-Additional Director General GST is directed to file his affidavit indicating: (i) Complete details regarding names of the officials of the Department along with their designations, who were present at Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh from 06:30 PM to 09.00 PM on 05.06.2025 (ii) Status of installation of CCTV cameras at the premises of Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Adjourned to 18.07.2025. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the detenue was held in illegal custody by respondents No. 2 and 3 from 04.06.2025 to 05.06.2025, in violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards.- Whether the detention and arrest procedures complied with the requirements under the applicable legal framework, including timely production before a Magistrate as mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.- Whether the conduct of respondents No. 2 and 3, including obstruction of the Warrant Officer in discharge of his official duties and misbehavior, amounted to contempt of court and a violation of the rule of law.- Whether the issuance of arrest memo and grounds of arrest was delayed and intended to cover up illegal detention.- Whether the petitioner was subjected to coercion or undue pressure through summons issued prematurely to withdraw the writ petition.- The adequacy of procedural safeguards such as CCTV surveillance at the premises of detention in light of Supreme Court directions.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality of Detention and Compliance with Constitutional SafeguardsThe legal framework governing detention and arrest includes Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person arrested shall be detained beyond 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate. The Court also referred to the procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nargarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).The Court examined the report of the Warrant Officer appointed by it, which revealed that the detenue was held in custody by respondents No. 2 and 3 from 12:02 PM on 04.06.2025 but was only produced before the Duty Magistrate at 9:25 PM on 05.06.2025, exceeding the 24-hour limit. The arrest memo and grounds of arrest were issued at 8:40 PM on 05.06.2025, significantly after the detention had commenced, indicating non-compliance with procedural safeguards.The respondents contended that the detenue was summoned for investigation under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and was arrested only when his responses were evasive at 8:40 PM on 05.06.2025. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing, given the evidence of continuous custody prior to the formal arrest and the absence of any documentation supporting lawful detention during that period.Thus, the Court concluded that the detenue was subjected to illegal custody in violation of constitutional guarantees.Issue 2: Obstruction of Official Duty and Contemptuous ConductThe Warrant Officer, appointed by the Court to inspect the premises and recover the detenue, faced active obstruction by officials of respondents No. 2 and 3. They prevented him from recording the detenue's statement, snatched papers from his hand, and misbehaved with him in the presence of police personnel. This conduct was documented in video recordings and reflected in the Judicial Magistrate's order dated 05.06.2025.The Court emphasized that such behavior exhibited a blatant disregard for the authority of the judiciary and the rule of law. It held that the obstruction and misbehavior amounted to contempt of court and warranted strict action. The Court afforded respondents No. 2 and 3 an opportunity to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, underscoring the seriousness of the misconduct.Issue 3: Issuance of Arrest Memo and Attempted CoercionThe arrest memo was issued only after the Warrant Officer intervened, suggesting an attempt by respondents No. 2 and 3 to cover up the illegal detention. Additionally, the petitioner was served summons by respondent No. 2 on 16.06.2025, a day before the scheduled hearing of the writ petition, which was perceived as an effort to intimidate or pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the petition.The Court viewed these acts as indicative of malafide intent and an attempt to undermine the judicial process.Issue 4: Compliance with Surveillance and Record-Keeping RequirementsIn light of the Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others (2021), which mandates installation of CCTV cameras in detention premises to ensure transparency, the Court directed respondent No. 3 to file an affidavit detailing the status of CCTV installation at the Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.The Court also required production of original records including arrest memos, grounds of arrest, and medical examination reports to verify compliance with procedural safeguards.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The conduct of respondents No. 2 and 3 and other officials of the Department is ex facie contemptuous as they have intentionally and maliciously misbehaved with the Warrant Officer and hindered him from discharging the official duty entrusted to him by this Court.''The detenue was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at 9:25 PM on 05.06.2025 i.e. beyond the stipulated period of 24 hours which is in direct contravention of his fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.''This Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such recalcitrant misconduct depicting a blatant disregard for the rule of law. Allowing such lawless to continue unchecked would undermine the authority and dignity of the justice administration mechanism.'Core principles established include the inviolability of constitutional safeguards relating to detention and arrest, the imperative of timely judicial oversight, and the necessity for officials to cooperate with judicial officers without obstruction. The Court underscored that any deviation or obstruction not only violates individual rights but also constitutes contempt of court.Final determinations on each issue were reserved pending further proceedings, with directions to respondents No. 3 to submit detailed affidavits and produce original records, and an opportunity granted to show cause against contempt proceedings. The Court's orders reflect a firm stance against illegal detention and obstruction of justice, emphasizing adherence to constitutional and procedural norms.