P&H HC slams GST Intelligence Over Illegal Detention, dodgy Surveillance

P&H HC Slams officials of Directorate General of GST Intelligence over illegal detention, dodgy surveillance – Barkha Bansal Vs. State of U.T (Punjab And Haryana High Court); CRWP-6077-2025 (O&M); 18/07/2025

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticized officials from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for the illegal detention and “dodgy surveillance” of a person in a high-profile GST investigation. The court found prima facie evidence that officials illegally detained an individual overnight, violating his constitutional rights and demonstrating a serious disregard for fundamental liberties. The case stems from a habeas corpus petition filed by B Bansal, who sought the release of her husband, Bharat Lal Garg, alleging he was unlawfully detained by DGGI officials starting June 4.

Key observations from the court include:

• Illegal Detention: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar stated that the DGGI’s actions were “legally questionable and constitutionally untenable”. The detainee was held for over 30 hours, and the prolonged stay was considered coercive since he was not free to leave. The court noted that a “prima facie cognisable offence was yet to be made out against the detainee” despite the prolonged interrogation.
• Procedural Lapses: The DGGI officials were found to have put the detainee under restraint at 5:46 p.m. on June 5 but did not show urgency in providing the grounds for his arrest. The court observed that this, along with the failure to provide the detainee with the “reasons to believe that he committed an offence,” rendered the arrest illegal and non-existent in the eyes of the law.
• Dodgy Surveillance: The court rejected the DGGI’s claim that CCTV cameras were non-functional due to construction. The explanation was deemed “deliberate and evasive” since all other electronic resources, including the E-office portal, were fully functional. The Additional Director General of the Chandigarh zonal unit has been directed to file an affidavit demonstrating compliance with Supreme Court directions regarding operational CCTV cameras during interrogations.
• Obstruction of Justice: The court also raised concerns about the obstruction of a court-appointed warrant officer. A warrant officer, appointed by the High Court on June 5, recovered the detainee from an IRS officer’s premises where he was allegedly being held under guard. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on July 30 to address the obstruction caused to the warrant officer.

Final Takeaways

This case highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against the misuse of power and the importance of upholding constitutional rights during investigations. The final takeaways are:

• Adherence to Due Process: Law enforcement agencies, including the DGGI, must strictly adhere to legal procedures, including providing grounds for arrest and reasons for believing an offense was committed. Failure to do so can render an arrest illegal.
• Constitutional Rights: The judgment reinforces that citizens have a right against illegal detention. Prolonged, overnight detention without a clear legal basis is considered a violation of constitutional rights.
• Transparency and Accountability: The court’s rejection of the CCTV explanation and the directive for an affidavit on the matter underscores the need for transparency and accountability from government officials. Agencies must ensure compliance with Supreme Court guidelines, such as maintaining functional CCTV cameras in interrogation areas.