The Madras High Court directed the enquiry against the customs officer for seizing the Mangalsutra of Sri Lankan citizen seized without following principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that it is very unfair on the part of the Principle Customs Commissioner to remove the “thaalikodi” (mangalsutra) from the petitioner, who is yet to start her marriage life with her husband at France in the last week of January, 2024.
“The behaviour of the officer is unbecoming as an officer,” the court said.
The bench stated that the “thaalikodi” holds deep cultural and traditional significance in Indian society. Rooted in the customs of Hindu marriage, it symbolizes the marital bond between a husband and wife and represents fidelity, prosperity, and well-being. The “thaalikodi” is a sacred thread tied around the bride’s neck during the marriage ceremony. It signifies auspiciousness and the sacred bond of marriage. The “thaalikodi” is considered as a visual and spiritual representation of the marital vows and the lifelong commitment between the couple.
The bench while criticising the act of the customs officer stated that the respondent customs official, being well aware of the sentiments of “thaalikodi”, had asked the petitioner to remove the same. In this case, the petitioner worn “thaalikodi” weighing 88 grams, which is a reasonable weight that everyone wear. Further, it appears that the name of the petitioner’s husband was inscribed in the “thaali”.
However, the customs officer was unable to find out the difference between the reasonable weight and suspicious weight. Even if there is any suspicion, the 2nd respondent should have asked the petitioner to show the “Thaalikodi”, instead of removing it. Thus, the act of the customs officer makes it clear that there is an ulterior motive to distract the attention of other officials for the benefit of someone else.
Customs Department’s Terror
The petitioner is a citizen of SriLanka and had come down to Chennai and She got married to one Jeyakanth, who is also a Srilankan citizen and their marriage was solemnized at the SRO, Madurandhagam, Chengalpet District on 15.07.2023.
The petitioner’s husband left for France, where he is living currently and the petitioner left for SriLanka with her parents to await her spouse sponsor visa. She got her visa in the month of November 2023. Thereafter, once again, she
travelled to India and landed at Chennai International Airport on 30.12.2023 at 03.30 pm along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law with her children. As her husband had also come from France on 27.12.2023, to accompany her to France, they planned for pilgrimage too, to visit the various temples in Tamil Nadu, as it is our custom and tradition since she is newly married and yet to start her life in abroad during our visit in Tamil Nadu.
While passing the customs, the customs officer had checked their belongings and questioned about her gold bangles weighing about 45 grams and Thaalikodi weighing about 88 grams. When the enquiry was conducted, she replied that she had got married and going to France after their planned pilgrimage in Tamil Nadu and she has also shown the return ticket to France to the officials.
The customs officer did not accept her statements and started to treat the petitioner, her in-laws and the 3 children in an arrogant manner and ordered the petitioner to remove her Thaalikodi and hand over the same to the 2nd respondent.
However, she refused and begged the customs official not to remove her Thaali since it is a sentimental ornament being a symbol and token of marriage. In spite of her request, the respondent customs official, S.Mythili along with her subordinates had forced the petitioner and snatched her Mangalya Thalikodi from her neck. Seeing the formidable behavior of the customs official, her in-laws had also begged the officer not to do so. But they were man-handled and pushed on the floor. The 3 children started screaming and shivering with fear and at one point of time, her mother-in-law had fainted and fell down on the floor.
In spite of expressing the petitioner’s genuineness and the purpose of coming to India, the respondents had neglected and refused to return their jewels. Since the petitioner has to live with her husband, if the jewels are not returned to her, her life will be in distress as the jewels are her thaali and shridanam, which are connected with the sentiments, tradition and culture.
Court’s Observation
The court observed that the confiscation order was passed without issuing the show cause notice. No proper opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of confiscation order. Since the Mahazar was prepared with false information to foist a false case against the petitioner, the confiscation order was also passed, as an ex parte order, based on the false information available in the said Mahazar.
The manner, in which the jewellery was brought by the petitioner, as stated in the Mahazar is that it was brought under the sleeve, however, in the affidavit and counter, it was clearly stated that the petitioner worn the jewellery at the time of arrival. Due to the said contradiction of the respondents, it is clear that there was a change in the stand of the respondents with regard to the manner, in which the gold was carried by the petitioner, from proceedings to proceedings.
As per the counter, in this case, the seizure was made due to the violation of Baggage Rules, 2016. However, this Court found that the question of violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016, would not arise since the Baggage Rule contains a provision as “carried on the person”, which this Court declared that the said provision in the Baggage Rule is ultra vires the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry), is directed to conduct the enquiry against the Officials, who are involved in the entire episode and take appropriate action in accordance with law and thereafter file a report before this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The court said that As far as Seizing Officer is concerned, since her conduct is unbecoming as an Officer, she has to be necessarily enquired and appropriate action has to be taken against her by the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS- Customs). Hence, this matter is referred to the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS-Customs).
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the confiscation order. The respondents are directed to release the goods of the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Case Details
Case Title: Thanushika Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No.: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
Date: 31.01.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: A.Simiyon Raja
Counsel For Respondent: M.Santhanaraman
