Agencies at international airports must sensitize officers on detention, arrest laws of a traveler: SC

The Supreme Court has voiced an imminent need requiring the jurisdictional agencies concerned, handling affairs at the international airports, to sensitize their officers in the prevailing laws before taking the drastic step of detention and arrest of an international traveler.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has further clarified that any such step should not be taken in haste and must be proceeded by appropriate legal opinion and with a pragmatic approach.  

These observations came to be made by the bench while declaring the arrest of one Rocky Abraham to be unlawful. Abraham was apprehended at Delhi Domestic Airport after was allegedly found in possession of a deer horn in violation of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

An FIR was registered under Section 39, 49, and 51 of Wildlife Protection) Act, 1972 against him on the same day at 7:05 p.m. at the Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station. Abraham is a citizen of India who had been settled in Italy for the past 23 years. He was travelling from Italy to Kochi via Delhi for his annual vacation and to undergo knee surgery. 

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had submitted before court that in view of the forensic report issued by the Wildlife Institute of India, the prosecution of Abraham in the said FIR was not warranted and in all probability the police would be filing a closure report. 

"Under ordinary circumstances, we would have refrained from interfering in the matter leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the High Court for expediting the hearing of the pending writ petition, but considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, viz.: a. That the petitioner is an NRI, settled and employed in Italy. b. That admittedly the article recovered from the possession of the petitioner viz. the reindeer horn does not violate any statute; and c. Pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner at the Indira Gandhi Internatitonal airport on 16th January, 2025, he remained incarcerated in prison for almost 14 days, we feel it expedient in the interest of justice to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India to examine the prayer for quashing on merits", the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court referred to a recent incident that took place at the Jaipur International Airport, wherein an octogenarian passenger travelling from Dubai was detained and his pre owned Rolex watch was arbitrarily seized on the ground that it constituted luxury goods. Ultimately, the watch was found to be lawfully owned. 

"Such ill-advised actions tend to bring the reputation of the country to disrepute in the international fora in addition to bringing the conduct of the concerned officers in breach of the human rights guarantees", the top court noted.

Court also have granted Abraham liberty to avail suitable remedy seeking damages before the appropriate forum, if so desired.

The issues pertaining to the bail bond and surety conditions and the human rights violation are left open to adjudication in SMWP(Criminal) No. 4 of 2021 wherein the Supreme Court has already taken cognizance to address the systemic problem of undertrial prisoners continuing to languish in custody on account of their inability to furnish sureties or to satisfy onerous bail conditions. 

Case Title: ROCKY ABHRAHAM vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.