Supreme Court Upholds GST And Customs Arrest Powers

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the authority of officers to arrest individuals under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Customs Acts but introduced key safeguards to prevent arbitrary detentions and coercion. The ruling seeks to balance the government’s need to combat tax evasion with the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights.

New rules on animal testing must take India forward, not backwards: Maneka Gandhi Officials maintain the changes seek to simplify approvals for research institutions, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. Updated on: Oct 26, 2026, 14:54:47 IST By Jasjeev Gandhiok Prefer HTPrefer HT Prefer HT on Google Share The Centre’s draft rules governing animal experimentation have triggered concerns among animal rights groups, which say the changes could weaken independent oversight and make it easier for laboratories to conduct experiments on animals. However, officials maintain the changes seek to simplify approvals for research institutions, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi. HT speaks to animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, a long-time campaigner against animal experimentation. Edited excerpts: A major change to animal experimentation, proposed in the draft, is that mild and moderate experiments could be approved by an institution’s own ethics committee rather than going to the central regulator. In practical terms, what does this change mean for an animal inside a laboratory? Does it make it easier for more animals to be experimented on? It means the animal loses the one independent pair of eyes that was looking at its fate. Today, experiments on animals larger than a rat go to the central regulator, and there is at least someone outside the building asking whether this experiment is necessary at all. Under the draft, the people who want to do the experiment, their colleagues and their department heads will be the ones approving it. And it is the institution itself, through its own veterinarian, that decides whether the experiment is mild or moderate in the first place. No institution has ever turned down its own funding. So yes, it will make it easier, and it will make it faster, and that means more animals. Mild and moderate are also the bulk of experiments, so we are effectively handing over most of animal experimentation in India to self regulation. The draft classifies experiments as mild, moderate, severe and non-recovery. Is there a concern that the institution conducting the research will effectively decide how severe the experiment is. Does this leave a grey area? It isn’t grey, it is completely black. Under this draft, the institution that wants to do the experiment is also the one that decides which category it falls into. That decision matters enormously, because if the experiment is classified as mild or moderate, the institution’s own committee approves it and it never goes to the central regulator. Only severe and non-recovery experiments on larger animals go outside. So the same people who want the experiment approved are deciding whether anyone independent will ever examine it. That is a clear conflict of interest, and it will push experiments towards the lower categories. Starving a rat for a day is called mild. Keeping a social animal alone in a cage is mild. Starving it for two days, or putting it through distress it cannot escape, is moderate. So is testing herbal products, testing established drugs, and anything described as having “known and reversible effects,” which could mean almost anything. This is not a scientific list. It is the most common commercial work. The draft also creates exceptions and allows laboratories to use animals from open markets, unregistered sources, and in certain circumstances, stray, feral, wild and protected animals. What is the biggest risk that this may create for animals in practice? Could community dogs, lost pets or animals taken from the wild find their way into laboratories? The biggest risk is that nobody will know where an animal came from. The whole point of registered breeders was traceability. Once you allow open markets and unregistered sources for cattle, goats, birds and fish, you create a demand, and in this country demand is met very quickly by people who will pick up anything. Strays and wild animals can be used if a “competent authority” permits it, and the draft never says who that is. Community dogs, someone’s lost pet, birds from illegal markets, all of it can find its way into a laboratory. These exceptions should be removed completely. If a lab cannot get an animal from a registered source, it should not be doing that experiment. The draft formally incorporates the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement, but critics say these safeguards become weaker if institutions themselves are approving experiments. Do you believe India should now be moving towards replacing animal experiments altogether, particularly when the health ministry has already allowed certain drug testing through non-animal methods? What should the rules do differently? Yes, and we are not starting from zero. The health ministry has already amended the drug rules to accept non-animal methods. The world is moving this way because these methods are often more predictive for humans than a mouse ever was. Writing replacement, reduction and refinement into the rules means nothing if the person checking compliance is the institution itself. The rules should make it mandatory to show that no validated alternative exists before an animal is used, set up a national body to validate and promote alternatives, put money into them, and set timelines to phase out animal use in areas where alternatives are already available. A rule that only mentions replacement as a principle is decoration. You have worked on animal experimentation regulation for decades. What specific changes would you want the government to make to this draft? I don’t think this draft can be fixed. There is hardly a provision in it that doesn’t need changing, and when everything needs to change, it is better to start again. So the draft should be put aside and written afresh, this time with independent scientists, animal welfare organisations and legal experts at the table. The new rules must take India forward, not backwards. Animals already have certain protections under the law which cannot be taken away. New should be building on them.

Orissa High Court Rules SC/ST Status Cannot Be Carried Across State Borders

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response to Challenge Against Chhattisgarh Anti-Conversion Law

A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, ruled on 281 petitions challenging the arrest powers under central and state GST laws and the Customs Act. The court emphasized that arrests cannot be made on mere suspicion or for the sake of investigation, and they must be backed by substantial evidence.

Key Judicial Safeguards Introduced

Right to Pre-Arrest Bail – The court affirmed that individuals can seek pre-arrest bail even if no formal First Information Report (FIR) has been filed.
Written Explanation of Arrest – Officers must provide written reasons for an arrest, ensuring transparency.
Right to Legal Representation – Detainees must be allowed access to legal counsel, though not necessarily throughout the entire interrogation.
Procedural Compliance – The Supreme Court extended the principles laid down in the 1997 DK Basu judgment, ensuring that Customs and GST officers maintain detailed records of arrests, including the identity of informants, time of arrest, and other statutory details.
Restrictions on Coerced Payments – The court addressed concerns that taxpayers were being forced to make “voluntary” payments under the threat of arrest. It clarified that payments under Section 74(5) of the GST Act must be made without coercion, urging the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue guidelines preventing such pressure tactics.

Clarifications on Arrest Powers Under Customs and GST Acts

The court clarified that under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act, officers cannot justify arrests without material evidence. While the provision does not explicitly require officers to have material proof in their possession, they must base arrests on substantial justification rather than mere suspicion.

Similarly, for arrests under Section 69 of the GST Act, the court mandated that the commissioner must record reasons in writing, ensuring that arrests are supported by material evidence indicating a non-bailable offense. The ruling rejected the argument that arrests under GST laws can only follow a completed tax assessment, affirming that authorities can act before an assessment if clear evidence of tax evasion exists.

The Supreme Court also ruled that provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, apply to Customs and GST officers, reinforcing the need for procedural compliance. Officers must wear official identification and ensure transparency in enforcement actions.

A Balanced Approach to Tax Enforcement

The Supreme Court struck a balance between empowering tax authorities and protecting individuals’ rights. The ruling asserts that while tax evasion must be tackled, enforcement actions must be conducted lawfully, with arrests subjected to judicial scrutiny.

The decision sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that tax authorities operate within constitutional boundaries while preventing wrongful detentions and undue harassment. Going forward, arrests under GST and Customs laws will likely face heightened scrutiny, reinforcing due process and fairness in tax enforcement.