Normal For Newly Married Person To Wear Gold: Madras HC Criticises Customs Officer For Seizing Srilankan Citizen's 'Thalikodi, 'Annihilating Hindu Customs'

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy further noted that the officer had seized the thali without even considering its importance and the officer's acts amounted to annihilation of the customs of the Hindu religion and the culture of the country. The court also went on to state that the officer seemed to have worked with an ulterior motive to distract the attention of the other officials for the benefit of someone else and thus directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) to conduct an inquiry against the officer and take appropriate action as per law.

“Wearing “thaalikodi” is culture of this country and asking a passenger to remove it, or forcefully snatching it from them, would certainly amount to annihilate the culture and at any cost, such act cannot be tolerated. Therefore, such irresponsible and rude behaviour of the 2nd respondent is clearly unbecoming as an officer and the same requires appropriate enquiry and action.,” the court said.

The court also observed that Rule 3 Clause (b) of the Baggage Rules 2016, which used the words “carried on the person up to Rs. 50,000,” was contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and was thus ultra vires. The court noted that this clause under the Baggage Rules was contrary to Section 79 of the Customs Act which had excluded the jewels worn by the person. Thus, the court noted that while bringing in the Rule, the Rule making body had made the Baggage Rules as if they had the inherent power to make their own rules beyond the scope of the Statute.

“In the present case, admittedly, the Rule-making Authorities made the Rules by traveling beyond the scope of the Act, which would amount to ultra vires. In such case, the Statute would prevails over the Rules. When such being the case, the Statute referred only with regard to the baggage and therefore, the Rule has to be confined and read only with regard to the baggage and not with regard to the articles “carried on the person,” the court said.

The court noted that while enacting the Customs Act, the parliament had consciously excluded the jewels worn by the passengers. The court added that if there was any intention to put the passengers into hassle, the parliament could amend the Act and till then the officers had to apply their minds while detaining passengers.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Thanushika, a Srilankan national seeking to release the gold ornaments seized from her and her family by the authorities. The petitioner submitted that while she had come to Chennai for pilgrimage with her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and her children, the officers questioned her about her gold jewelry. Though she informed the officers that it was her own jewelry and that she had recently gotten married and was going to France after the pilgrimage, the officers did not accept her statement and forcefully removed her thali in an arrogant manner.

The petitioner also submitted that she and her family were mistreated by the officer. It was also submitted that the jewels were their personal property and not subject to any irregularities or violation of law. She further submitted that though the Customs had referred to the Baggage Rules 2016 in their counter, it would not apply to the present case. it was also submitted that the counter varied from the confiscation order on how the gold was carried by the petitioner.

The department, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was possessing gold jewellery which was non-bonafide baggage for a foreign national. It was submitted that the petitioner, being a foreign national (Srilankan) was not eligible to bring gold jewellery into India either in her person or in her baggage. The department also claimed that the Mahazar proceedings were conducted peacefully without causing any inconvenience and by following the due procedure of law.

The court also noted that the department, in its counter had not specifically denied the allegations raised with respect to mistreatment of the petitioner and her family. Relying on Section 58 of the Evidence Act 1872 and the Writ Rules 2021 made by the High Court of Madras, the court ruled that when the averments were not specifically denied, it could be concluded that the same were accepted. The court, thus concluded that the proceedings were conducted in a disrespectful manner. The court also concluded that the mahazar was prepared with false information to foist a false case against the petitioner.

The court concluded that the provision “as carried on the person” of the Baggage Rules, 2016 is ultra vires, and thus noted that the Gold could not be detained under the rules. The court also noted that the confiscation order was passed without any application of mind or without any proper opportunity of a personal hearing.

Thus, the court was inclined to quash the confiscation order and directed the goods to be released within 7 days of the date of receipt of order copy.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Simiyon Raja

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Senior Standing counsel

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

Case No: W.P.No.5005 of 2024