Due Process Non-Negotiable in Raids and Inspections: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has made it clear that government officials cannot bend the rules when carrying out inspections, searches, or seizures.

On September 12, 2025, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that observance of due process of law and the principles of natural justice being intertwined, is a legal necessity to ensure that the action of the authorities does not result in manifest arbitrariness or abuse and misuse of power by those empowered to conduct inspection, search, and seizure. 

When the law prescribes a particular procedure to be followed while taking action, the same must be strictly adhered to, the bench emphasised while quashing notices issued and search conducted by Inspector of Legal Metrology in the premises of appellant ITC Limited.

Officials from the Legal Metrology Department raided ITC Limited's Bengaluru premises in July 2020 and seized 7,600 packets of “Classmate” notebooks. The action was taken over alleged violations of packaging rules [Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009], but ITC challenged it, saying the search was carried out without a warrant and in violation of criminal procedure laws.

ITC Limited filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. The single judge bench on September 4, 2020, quashed the notices issued by the Inspector and directed the release of the seized goods, holding that the search and seizure were conducted without jurisdiction.

On appeal, the High Court division bench held there was no illegality or procedural error in the search and seizure. By its judgment on April 15, 2021, it observed that the requirement of a search warrant does not arise where action is initiated under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and that the Authority is duly empowered to inspect, search, and seize.

On the civil appeal by the ITC Ltd, the apex court examined whether the inspection and seizure conducted by the Inspector under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.   

After examining the case, the top court quashed the raid and notices, calling the entire process “illegal and unsustainable.” It held that the inspector had neither obtained a search warrant nor recorded proper reasons for conducting the raid, both of which are mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act, and Sections 165, 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C.

"Compliance with statutory procedures, including recording 'reasons to believe' before initiating search or seizure, is incumbent upon officials; non-compliance renders the action futile and results in arbitrary exercise of authority,'' it said.  

Court emphasised that in every search conducted under a special enactment without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory. "The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant and must reflect application of mind based on some information – either from a third party or personal knowledge – and cannot be based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations. Such reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction; something more substantial is required for a prudent person to conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary,'' it said. 

Similarly, court also underscored that there must be an application of mind before seizing goods, materials, or documents during a search. "A rational nexus must exist between the articles seized and the contemplated violation under the applicable provisions. The authority effecting the seizure must record reasons for such seizure, and those reasons must demonstrate due application of mind to the materials available,'' the bench said.    

Court pointed out that various special enactments, such as the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Finance Act, 1994, the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as several repealed indirect Tax Laws of different States, contain provisions relating to search and seizure. 

"In all such enactments, the object of search and seizure is, more often than not, to collect evidence relating to an ongoing investigation of an offence or violation, and in some cases, to prevent a violation. Further, in all these enactments, the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C, insofar as it is applicable to search and seizure, is to be followed. It is also settled law that unless the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are explicitly excluded, the same shall apply to special enactments as well,'' the bench said.

In the present case, the bench held that the ratio laid down by the apex court in the various judgments could not have been ignored by the division bench of the High Court.

Holding that Sections 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C applied to the present case, the bench said, accordingly, the presence of two respectable independent witnesses from the locality was mandatory. 

Court pointed out that in the case at hand, the driver of the Assistant Controller, being a party to the inspection, acted as a witness, which was in violation of law.

"It is settled law that where the initial proceedings are vitiated, all subsequent proceedings are unsustainable. Any act in violation of law cannot be brushed aside on the ground that no prejudice was caused; every violation of law is deemed to cause some prejudice,'' the bench emphasised.   

Therefore, court held that the respondents not only violated Section 15 of the 2009 Act, but also failed to show that the search was so imminent as to justify dispensing with a warrant.

Court thus allowed the appeal, set aside the division bench judgment, and restored the single judge's order. 

Case Title: ITC Ltd Vs State of Karnataka & Anr

Judgment Date: September 12, 2025

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan