Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against CBIC Circulars Mandating Compulsory Disposal And Sale Of Seized Gold To RBI

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging two circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) mandating compulsory disposal and sale of all seized gold ornaments or jewellery to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) within three months from the date of seizure.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the plea moved by one Jatin Khurana as being non-maintainable, observing that he was a stranger who was not adversely affected by the circulars as none of his ornaments or articles or jewellery items had been seized.

Khurana’s counsel contended that the PIL was filed since gold jewellery or ornaments worth as low as Rs.50,000 could be seized at the airport and sold immediately. On hearing this, the bench said:

“This Court is of the view that any individual who owns gold jewellery/ ornaments and who travels by air is not economically or socially backward and can approach the Courts directly.”

Khurana had challenged the vires of Circular instruction No. 22/2022-Customs dated September 06, 2022, and Circular instruction No. 27/2021-Customs dated December 03, 2021.

It was his case that the impugned circulars were ultra vires Section 150, 125 and 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Articles 14, 21, 31 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

His counsel submitted that the circulars were arbitrary as they failed to differentiate between gold ornaments which have design and emotional value from other forms of gold.

It was also Khurana’s case that the conversion of gold jewellery into gold bars and their consequent sale closed all doors for restitution and would cause irreparable loss to the rightful owners. It was argued that the circulars failed to differentiate between ‘seized’ gold jewellery and ‘confiscated’ gold jewellery.

Rejecting the PIL, the bench observed that the petition was not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that an aggrieved person must approach the Court.

“In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is a stranger, who has not been adversely affected by either of the impugned Circular Instructions as none of his ornaments or articles or jewellery items have been seized,” the court said.

It added that though the rule of locus standi is relaxed in case of public interest litigations, the same has to be done only to ensure that the poor or socially and economically backward people or persons with disability are not denied their rights.

“In a public interest case, there need be no litigant, if a problem is deemed by the Court as worthy of attention. The concept of public interest litigation, as stated hereinabove, is linked to the enforcement of the social and economical rights in India,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Mahajan, Mr. Ishaan Dhingra, Mr. Mridul Tiwari, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate for CBIC

Title: JATIN KHURANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

Click Here To Read Order