Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has strongly criticized the customs officials at Chennai International Airport for forcefully seizing the ‘Thaalikodi’ (mangalsutra) of a Sri Lankan woman and detaining her and her family for nearly 12 hours. Court held that the confiscation of gold jewelry from the petitioner, Thanushika, was illegal and directed the immediate release of the ornaments.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, while quashing the customs department’s confiscation order, held that the seizure was not only against legal provisions but also amounted to disregarding cultural and religious sentiments. Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the customs officers treated the petitioner, stating that snatching her ‘Thaalikodi’ showed a lack of sensitivity toward Hindu traditions.

"The act of the 2nd respondent amounts to annihilate the customs of Hindu religion and the culture of this Country," said the court.

Thanushika, a Sri Lankan citizen had come to India to visit temples in Tamil Nadu after her marriage. She was supposed to go to France with her husband after their trip to India. She arrived in Chennai on December 30, 2023, along with her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and three children. She was allegedly carrying 166 grams of gold, including bangles and a ‘Thaalikodi,’ as part of her personal belongings. Upon arrival, customs officials at the airport intercepted her and seized the jewelry, claiming it exceeded the permissible limit under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

The petitioner alleged that customs officers mistreated her and her family, forced them into a locked room without food or water, and coerced them into signing documents falsely stating that the gold was smuggled. She further claimed that officials forcibly removed her ‘Thaalikodi,’ despite her repeated pleas and emotional distress. The customs department, however, denied these allegations and maintained that the gold was seized lawfully under the Customs Act.

The high court found that the customs officers failed to follow due process. It ruled that the Baggage Rules, 2016, which prohibit foreign nationals from carrying gold beyond a specified limit, could not override the Customs Act, 1962.

Justice Ramasamy also held that jewelry worn on the person does not constitute “baggage” and, therefore, could not be subjected to the restrictions imposed by the rules.

Court also stressed that the custom officer had seized the “thaalikodi” of the petitioner without even considering its sentiments.

Referring to Hindu customs, the court underscored the cultural significance of a ‘Thaalikodi’ in a married woman’s life and criticized customs officials for disregarding religious sentiments. It noted that a newly married woman wearing 88 grams of gold as ‘Thaalikodi’ was not unusual and that treating it as smuggled gold was unwarranted.

Additionally, the court observed inconsistencies in the customs department’s records. The seizure report falsely stated that the petitioner had concealed the gold under her clothing, while the official counter-affidavit admitted that she was wearing the jewelry openly. This contradiction, the court noted, demonstrated an attempt to frame the petitioner unfairly.

In its order, the high court directed the customs department to release the seized gold within 7 days and ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the officers involved. 

"As far as the 2nd respondent/S.Mythili, Seizing Officer is concerned, as discussed above, 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)," ordered the court while referring the matter to the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS-Customs).

Case Title: Thanushika vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)