Explained | Can FIR Be Registered Against A Sitting Judge? What Is In-House Enquiry Procedure On Complaint Against Judge?

Reports regarding the alleged recovery of unaccounted money from the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma of the Delhi High Court have sent shock waves across the legal fraternity.

While it is understood that the Supreme Court Collegium is considering a proposal to transfer Justice Verma and that the Delhi HC CJ is enquiring into the matter, several concerns are being raised, quite rightly, by the general public.

If a Judge is found to be in alleged possession of unaccounted cash, should not an FIR be first lodged on this issue and a criminal investigation be commenced?

However, the simple answer is that at the first instance, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against a sitting Judge unless the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is consulted, as held by the Supreme Court in its judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).

Once the Chief Justice of India is satisfied that the allegations are prima facie credible, the CJI has to advise the President of India to allow the police to register an FIR.

"In order to adequately protect a Judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President will consult the Chief Justice of India who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the Judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter."

Over the years, this process has come to be known as the 'In-House Procedure,' which is a confidential enquiry for institutional credibility under the charge of the CJI.

The In-House Procedure was first stated in the 1991 judgment where the allegations were against a former Chief Justice of the High Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC Act).

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, two important issues emerged: Are judges public servants under the PC Act? If they are, then a prior sanction is necessary to launch criminal prosecution against them.

The second question was, who would be the competent authority to give that sanction?

Judges are 'public servants' as per PC Act

The Veeraswami judgment holds that a judge of a High Court or a Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of either Court, is a 'public servant' under the PC Act. Therefore, a criminal prosecution or FIR can be lodged against the judge for offences under the PC Act.

Sanction is not necessary if the judge no longer holds the office.

Who can remove a judge?

The judgment says the President of India is the competent authority to grant sanction under the PC Act to initiate a criminal prosecution against a sitting judge.

"The President, therefore, being the authority competent to appoint and to remove a Judge, of course in accordance with the procedure envisaged in Article 124, clauses (4) and (5) of the Constitution, may be deemed to be the authority to grant sanction for prosecution of a Judge under the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) in re- spect of the offences provided in section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947."

However, no FIR can be lodged against a judge unless the CJI is "consulted". The judgment reasons that in-house procedure protects a judge from "frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment".

"The President shall act in accordance with advice given by the Chief Justice of India."

Is the advice of CJI binding?

The judgment says when the President consults the CJI, the latter has to consider all the "materials" to tender the advice. If the CJI thinks that it is not a fit case for grant of sanction, the President 'shall' not accord sanction.

The judgment observes:

"If the chief Justices of opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the Judge concerned the President shall not accord sanction to prosecute the Judge; This will save the Judge concerned from unnecessary harassment as well as from frivolous prosecution against him.

Similarly in the case of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the President shall consult such of the Judges of the Supreme Court as he may deem fit and proper and the President shall act in accordance with the advice given to him by the Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. The purpose of grant of previous sanction before prosecuting a public servant i.e. a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court is to protect the Judge from unnecessary harassment and frivolous prosecution more particularly to save the Judge from the biased prosecution for giving judgment in a case which goes against the Government or its officers though' based on good reasons and rule of law."

What is the 'In-House Enquiry' procedure?

In the 1995 judgment of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, the Supreme Court termed it an "In-House Procedure". It was stated that impeachment is a "drastic: remedy and needs to be only used in serious cases. Therefore, the Court suggested an alternative procedure when a judge of the High Court is involved.

In 2015, in Additional District And Sessions v Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya, the Supreme Court further explained the In-House procedure especially in the context of the role of the Chief Justice of the High Court when the complaint is against a judge of the High Court.

What is the procedure?

The in-house procedure, as evolved through the above-cited judgments, is as follows.

The complaint can either be received by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the CJI or the President. In the first case, the following procedure laid down is to be followed. When it is received by the CJI, a similar procedure is adopted. If the President receives the complaint, he must forward it to the CJI.

1. The Chief Justice of the High Court, after confidential enquiry from independent sources, should ascertain if the complaint raises serious allegations of misconduct or impropriety. The CJ must also ask for a response from the judge concerned.

It should be noted here that as per the 2015 judgment, it is not open for the Chief Justice of the High Court to further constitute any committee to hold an enquiry by recording statements etc. His only determination is, whether a prima facie case is made out requiring a deeper probe.

2. In light of the response received, if the Chief Justice of the High Court thinks the matter requires further action, he should then consult the CJI and place all relevant information before him.

Meanwhile, all other procedures of enquiry against the judge should be suspended.

3. The CJI, on receipt of the information from the Chief Justice of the High Court, the CJI must ask for comments from the Chief Justice of the High Court and a response from the concerned judge through the Chief Justice of the High Court.

It is at this stage before the CJI, that the veracity of the allegations are to be probed.

4. If the CJI is of the opinion that the matter requires further investigation, he shall constitute a three-member Committee consisting of two Chief Justices of the High Courts other than the High Court to which the judge belongs and one High Court judge.

5. The said Committee shall hold an enquiry into the allegation and submit a report to the CJI. The Committee must devise its own procedure but should follow principles of natural justice. A copy of the report has to be sent to the judge concerned.

Where the CJ of the High Court is involved, the Bar must directly bring the matter to the notice of the CJI.

When the enquiry report recommends the removal of the judge

The CJI shall:

1. ask the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement;

2. If the judge refuses to resign or seek voluntary retirement, the CJI must advise the Chief Justice of the High Court to not allot any judicial work to him. The same shall be put to the notice of the President and the Prime Minister.

In the case of Justice Soumitra Sen, the then-sitting judge of Calcutta High Court, he was advised to resign after an In-House Procedure was followed. Since he showed his unwillingness to resign, the then CJI K.G. Balakrishnan wrote it to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to initiate impeachment proceedings.

When the committee finds substance in allegation but misconduct not serious

In case the Committee finds that there is misconduct but not serious in nature, it shall call the judge and advise him accordingly.

If the allegation is against a Judge of the Supreme Court:

1. If a complaint is against a judge of the Supreme Court, the CJI must first examine it.

2. If CJI finds the complaint serious in nature, he shall ask for a response of the judge.

3. Based on the response and in light of the allegations, if the matter requires a deeper probe, CJI would constitute a Committee of three-judges of the Supreme Court.

4. The committee shall hold enquiry and similar action can be followed as followed in case a complaint is against a judge of the High Court.

There is no specific procedure where the allegation against the CJI is made. However, the pronouncements note that the President will have to consult other judges of the Supreme Court.

Transparency of in-house procedure

In Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had filed an Article 32 writ seeking public disclosure of the enquiry report made by a Committee constituted by the CJI of two judges of the Supreme Court and a judge of the High Court to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment against the then sitting judge of Karnataka High Court.

Dismissing the petition, the Court had said: "A report made on such inquiry if given publicity will only lead to more harm than good to the institution as Judges would prefer to face inquiry leading to impeachment. In such a case the only course open to the parties concerned if they have material is to invoke the provisions of Article 124 or Article 217 of the Constitution, as the case may be. It is not appropriate for the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief or direction for release of the Report, for what the Chief Justice of India has done is only to get information from peer Judges of those who are accused and the report made to the Chief Justice of India is wholly confidential."

The said report is only for the purpose of the satisfaction of the CJI that such a report has been made. It is purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final, it had observed. Jaisingh had remarked that the decision to not make the inquiry report public is a "scandaL".

Subsequently, the 2015 judgment the Registry of the Supreme Court was directed to upload the procedure on its official website.

Conclusion

While the In-House procedure allows the CJI to make informed decisions, the lack of any written guidelines or mechanism to make the inquiry report public continues to attract scepticism. A fair and transparent procedure would restore the tarnished faith of the judiciary caused by such unfortunate incidents.

Supreme Court Publishes Video & Pictures On Cash At Justice Yashwant Varma's House; Makes Report Of Delhi HC CJ Public

 

23 Mar 2025 12:02 AM

Listen to this Article

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court on Saturday uploaded on its website the reports and documents, including photos and video, with respect to the allegations of the discovery of unaccounted currencies at the home of Justice Yashwant Varma, sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

The inquiry report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and the response of Justice Varma have been made public.

Significantly, the Supreme Court also publicised the videos and photographs shared by the Delhi Police regarding the firefighting operation in Justice Varma's residence on March 14, when he was not present in his home.

The video appended to the report clearly shows sacks containing cash currencies, some of which are burnt. The video can be seen here.

Report submitted by Delhi HC CJ Upadhyay

The report submitted by the Chief Justice states that the incident happened on March 14 in a storeroom where access to any person other than those residing in the official bungalow of Justice Varma is not there. Chief Justice Upadhyay was informed by the Commissioner of Police Delhi in the evening around 4:50 pm on March 15 about the fire which happened at Justice Varma's bungalow on March 14 at 11.30 PM. Thereafter, the Chief Justice instructed the Registrar-cum-Secretary to visit the spot of the incident in person and prepare a report. The Registrar visited the spot, after informing the PS to Justice Varma. Justice Varma was also there

Justice Upadhyay learnt from the Delhi Police Commissioner that the PCR call regarding the fire was made by the Personal Secretary to Justice Varma after the PS was told by Justice Varma's servants about the fire.

Justice Upadhyay after apprising about the incident to CJI on March 16, contacted Justice Varma the next day. Justice Varma responded by stating that the room was accessible to the servants, gardeners and sometimes even the CPWD personnel. When Chief Justice showed him the Whatsapp pictures sent by the Commissioner of Police, Justice Varma expressed some "apprehension about some conspiracy against him".

The Commissioner of Police in his report dated 16.3.2025 has reported that as per the guard posted at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, the debris and other partially burnt articles were removed from the room where the fire had broken out in the morning of 15.3.2025.

Chief Justice Upadhyay stated in his report to the Chief Justice of India that the matter required deeper probe. "The enquiry conducted by me, prima facie, does not reveal possibility of entry or access to the room by any person other than those residing in the bungalow, the servants, the gardeners and CPWD personnels, if any. Accordingly, I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe," CJ Upadhyay said.

On receiving the report, CJI Sanjiv Khanna on March 21 asked Chief Justice Upadhyay to seek a response from Justice Varma on the presence of "unaccounted cash" the "source" of the money and the person who removed the "burnt cash" on the morning of March 15. Additionally, Justice Varma was asked not to dispose of his phone or to delete any any mobile number, or message or data from his mobile phone.

Justice Varma denies allegations

The Supreme Court also published the response given by Justice Varma.

He denied the allegations including that the room where the fire broke was a room in his official residence. As per his response, it is a storeroom that is disconnected from the main residence contrary to what is projected by TOI's report. He has also unequivocally denied any cash ever being placed in the storeroom.

"I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us. The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous. The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verges on the incredible and incredulous. It is a room which is completely disassociated from my living areas and a boundary wall demarcates my living area from that outhouse. I only wish that the media had conducted some enquiry before I came to be indicted and defamed in the press," Justice Varma has said in his response.

Justice Varma said that when the fire broke out, he and his wife were not there at the home, and only his daughter and aged mother were there. He said that this room was generally utilised by all and sundry to store articles such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements as well as CPWD material. This room is unlocked and accessible both from the official front gate as well as the backdoor of the staff quarters.

Justice Varma raised suspicions about the alleged cash currencies being absent on the morning of March 15. He pointed out that even when the PS of the Chief Justice visited the spot on March 15, no cash was found.

He stated that this was part of a conspiracy to frame him. He pointed out that certain unfounded allegations were circulated against him in social media in December 2024 as well.

"At the cost of repetition, I unequivocally state that neither I nor any of my family members had stored or kept any cash or currency in that storeroom at any point of time. Our cash withdrawals, made from time to time, are all documented and always through regular banking channels, the use of UPI applications and cards. Insofar as the allegation of the recovery of cash, I once again make it clear that no one from my house ever reported seeing any currency in burnt form in the room. In fact, this gets further corroborated from there being no cash or currency which we saw when the site was restored to us after the fire personnel and the police had left the scene quite apart from we being not apprised of any recovery or seizure which was made on the spot. This may also be viewed in light of the statement of the Chief of the Fire Service which I have gathered from news reports."

After examining the report of the Delhi HC CJ and the response of Justice Varma, CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to conduct in-house inquiry into the matter.

The members of the Committee are - Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.

Chief Justice of Delhi High Court has also been asked not to assign any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma.

1990 Kashmir University VC Murder Case | 'TADA Procedural Safeguards Violated' : Supreme Court Dismisses CBI Appeals Against Acquittals

 

"Kartar Singh (supra) says that confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere. Recording of confessional statements in a heavily guarded BSF camp or in a JIC where the atmosphere for an accused would generally be daunting and overbearing cannot be said to be in a free atmosphere. It has come on record that the confessional statements so recorded were not accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate whereafter those were sent directly to the Special Court which again is an infraction of the statute."

The Court lamented that the "the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye."

The Court noted that the Special Court had stopped short of observing that it was a case of abuse of power and authority, and that the procedural safeguards were completely disregarded.

The Court also added that the failure to recover the murder weapon (AK-47 rifle) seriously damaged the prosecution's case, weakening forensic evidence. The forensic witness had testified that he had not seen the AK-47 rifle from which the cartridges were fired.

The Court underlined that witnesses could not identify the accused, making their testimony unreliable. The witnesses described the kidnappers as young men with moustaches but could not identify them.

State (CBI) Vs Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors

Candidates Can't Be Rejected Solely Because They Had Higher Degrees Than Prescribed Qualification

 The word 'Degree' can mean means 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' or 'Doctorate Degree',

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate possessing a higher degree of qualification cannot be rejected solely because a lower degree of qualification is required for a particular post.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellants, who are post-graduates in Microbiology, Food Science, and Technology, and applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (“FSO”) were disqualified during the recruitment process on the grounds that their qualifications did not meet the criteria specified in the advertisement.

The appellants challenged their disqualification before the Jharkhand High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court ruled against the appellants, holding that the advertisement required a Bachelor's degree in the specified subjects and that a Master's degree in Microbiology or Food Science did not qualify. The recruitment advertisement mentioned that the candidate having a master's degree in relevant subjects (other than Chemistry) would be excluded from the selection process.

“The term 'degree' is defined under Section 22(3) the UGC Act, which states that the 'degree' means the 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and the 'Doctorate Degree'. Thus, wherever the word 'degree' is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would include within its scope and ambit all three, 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and a 'Doctorate Degree'.”, 

“we have no hesitation in concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must possess a master's degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master's or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”, 

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

S.53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation

 S.53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), for a person possessing a property under part performance of a contract, is not available to a party who knowingly entered into the agreement despite being aware of pending litigation.

The Court approved the view of the High Court that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the appellant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit when he had entered into an agreement with the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

The Court held that Section 53A TPA cannot be invoked by a transferee to obstruct or resist the claims of decree holders who have legally acquired rights over the suit property. It emphasized that a transferee who enters into a sale agreement during pending litigation, despite lacking a valid claim, cannot use this provision to override the decree holders' rights.

“the Courts have uniformly held that the limited rights of the transferee pendent lite on the principle of lis pendens. Such limited rights cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist the full claim of the decree holders to execute the decree in their favour. In fact, the Courts have deprecated such obstruction.”, the court observed.

Not 'Consumer' Without Privity Of Contract : Supreme Court Rejects Flat Seller's Consumer Complaint Against Financier Of Buyer

he Supreme Court on Thursday (March 20) ruled that to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the parties.

The Court held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as there was no privity of contract between the respondent and the Appellant. The respondent was not a party to the Home Loan Agreement between the Appellant and the buyer.

“we find that the appellant, assuming any liability in this regard existed at all, taking the respondent's case at the highest, could not have been saddled with having to pay more than what was envisaged under the Home Loan Agreement between the borrower and the appellant. In any event, the appellant's liability under the Agreement for sale was restricted only to satisfying the dues of the complainant-respondent with ICICI Bank which sum was in fact quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Three) and, in any view of the matter, could not have exceeded Rs.23,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Forty Thousand). Thus, the NCDRC could not have, under any circumstance, taken a view that the appellant was liable to pay Rs.31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs) both to ICICI Bank as well as to the complainant-respondent, who was not a party to the ultimate sanction of the loan by the Home Loan Agreement, which was between the appellant and the borrower.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the NCDRC's order was set aside.

Case Title: M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS SNEHASIS NANDA

Supreme Court Initiates In-House Procedure Against Delhi HC Judge Over Recovery Of Cash At Residence

 Supreme Court Initiates In-House Procedure Against Delhi HC Judge Over Recovery Of Cash At Residence

After an extraordinary meeting, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the transfer of Justice Yashwant Verma, Judge of the Delhi High Court, following reports regarding the discovery of huge amounts of unaccounted cash in his official residence.

Justice Verma is recommended to be transferred to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.

It is understood from those privy to the development that the transfer is not the final step and is only a preliminary action, with the authorities considering further actions as per the law. An in-house procedure against the Judge has been initiated.

As per the in-house enquiry procedure adopted by the Supreme Court, when there are allegations against a High Court Judge, the Chief Justice of India, after a preliminary enquiry, forms a committee of three Supreme Court judges to enquire into the matter after seeking the response of the Judge in question. Based on the report of the in-house panel, further action can be taken. It is understood that the CJI has initiated the preliminary enquiry into the matter.

A High Court Judge can be removed from office only through an impeachment motion passed by the Parliament. No judge has been impeached in India's history. Though some faced proceedings, they resigned before completion.

As per a report in the Times of India, the cash was found when a fire brigade reached Justice Verma's residence to douse a fire. Justice Varma was not in his residence then. When the fire personnel found the hoards of currency, they took pictures and videos of it and alerted their seniors. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the higher-ups in the government, who in turn informed the Chief Justice of India. This led to CJI Sanjiv Khanna convening an extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium on Thursday evening to discuss the matter.

Prioritise Criminal Appeals Of Elderly Accused On Bail, Especially When Crime Is Old

 

The Supreme Court has advised the High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals, where the accused are on bail. If the accused persons have remained on bail, especially in cases involving life sentences, and the appeal is ultimately dismissed after several years, then sending the accused back to prison might be difficult, particularly when they have attained old age.

The Court noted that generally, the High Courts prioritise appeals where the accused are in prison. However, there should be a balance struck so as to give adequate priority to the appeals where the accused are on bail, especially when the accused are aged and a long time has passed since the crime.

In the post-script to the judgment, the Court observed :

"In all the major High Courts in our country, there is a huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal. Considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail. The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail. If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade. Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority."

Case : State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamlal and others

In rape cases, the prosecutrix's testimony can be relied upon without corroboration if it inspires confidence, and delay in filing a complaint or lack of major injury marks in medical evidence does not necessarily negate the prosecution's case.

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 — Reliability of Prosecutrix's Testimony in Rape Cases — The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case can be relied upon without corroboration if it inspires confidence, emphasizing the importance of considering the broader probabilities of the case.

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217, Relied On.

Impact of Delay in Filing Complaint and Medical Evidence in Rape Cases — The Court noted that delay in lodging a complaint can be sufficiently explained and may not be fatal to the prosecution's case — Additionally, the absence of major injury marks in medical evidence does not necessarily negate the occurrence of rape.

Defence of False Implication and Character Assassination in Rape Cases — The Court rejected the defence of false implication and the attempt to discredit the prosecutrix based on her mother's alleged character, emphasizing that the accused's guilt is determined independently of such factors.

LOK MAL @ LOKU Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

BNSS/CrPC Provisions On Rights Of Arrested Persons Applicable To GST & Customs Acts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.

Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.