E-Paper
Hasty detentions of foreign travellers risk India’s image: SC
The court said there was an “imminent need to sensitise agencies handling affairs at international airports” so that officers desist from resorting to detention or arrest without legal clarity.
The Supreme Court has pulled up authorities at international airports for their “hasty and ill-advised” detentions of international travellers, warning that such actions tarnish India’s global reputation, even as it quashed the prosecution of a non-resident Indian (NRI) who was arrested in Delhi for allegedly carrying a deer horn that forensic analysis later confirmed to be that of a reindeer –– a species not protected under Indian wildlife law.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said there was an “imminent need to sensitise agencies handling affairs at international airports” so that officers desist from resorting to detention or arrest without legal clarity.
“These drastic steps must be preceded by appropriate legal opinion and a pragmatic approach,” noted the bench, calling for better awareness among officials about the scope of existing wildlife and customs laws.
The court emphasised that such impulsive actions bring “disrepute to the country internationally”, citing a recent incident at Jaipur airport where an elderly passenger’s pre-owned Rolex watch was seized on suspicion of being luxury contraband before being found lawful. “Such ill-advised actions tend to bring the country’s reputation into disrepute in international fora, in addition to breaching human rights guarantees,” the bench said.
The court made these observations while quashing the arrest and prosecution of Rocky Abraham, an Indian citizen settled in Italy for over two decades, who was detained at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport on January 16, 2025, while transiting from the international to domestic terminal. Airport officials claimed he was carrying a deer horn, in violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Abraham spent 14 days in Tihar Jail after his bail plea was initially rejected by a magistrate, and later granted with onerous conditions that required him to furnish two sureties and barred him from leaving India. His relatives had to travel from Kerala to Delhi to arrange the sureties, delaying his release. The court noted that Abraham, who was on a short visit to undergo knee surgery and spend time with family, faced the risk of losing his job in Italy due to prolonged detention.
However, a forensic report from the Wildlife Institute of India, dated January 20, 2025, confirmed that the seized article was in fact a reindeer horn (Rangifer tarandus), which is a species not listed under any protected category in the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The report, annexed to a status note filed by the police before the Delhi high court, left no doubt that no offence had been committed. Abraham was represented in the court by advocate Wills Mathews.
While the Delhi high court was still seized of Abraham’s plea to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution to put an end to what it called a “gross abuse of the process of law”.
“Allowing further prosecution of the petitioner would tantamount to a grave miscarriage of justice,” held the bench, declaring Abraham’s arrest and the FIR “unlawful” and ordering all related proceedings to be closed.
The bench recorded the fair submission of additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, who agreed that the prosecution was unwarranted and that the police were likely to file a closure report. The court also allowed Abraham to seek damages before an appropriate forum for the ordeal he suffered.
Taking note of the larger systemic concerns, the bench acknowledged submissions made by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which was impleaded in the case. NALSA drew attention to an earlier Supreme Court initiative addressing the plight of undertrials who remain behind bars due to their inability to furnish sureties or meet onerous bail conditions. While leaving those broader issues to be decided in a separate pending matter, the bench reiterated that the case highlighted an urgent need for reform in the agencies handling affairs at the airports.
