The Supreme Court emphasized the “need for airport agencies to sensitise their officers in prevailing laws” while quashing a case against an NRI over a Rolex watch seizure. The court noted that detention or arrest should not be taken in haste.
The Supreme Court emphasized the urgent need for jurisdictional agencies at international airports to educate their personnel on applicable laws before resorting to the serious actions of detaining and arresting international travelers.
This statement came from a bench comprised of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who quashed the arrest and criminal charges against NRI Rocky Abraham, an Indian citizen residing in Italy for over twenty years.
Abraham was detained at the Delhi airport in January 2025 after airport officials discovered a deer horn in his luggage, leading to allegations of violating the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Also Read: “Law Should Build Bridges, Not Walls”: Justice Surya Kant
He was subsequently arrested, and an FIR was lodged under Sections 39, 49, and 51 of the Act.
After spending nearly two weeks in custody, he was granted bail under stringent conditions, including a prohibition on leaving India. The Supreme Court noted that the item retrieved from Abraham was actually a reindeer horn, which does not violate any Indian wildlife or forestry laws.
The bench remarked,
“This court feels an imminent need to require the jurisdictional agencies concerned, handling affairs at the international airports, to sensitise their officers in the prevailing laws before taking the drastic step of detention and arrest of an international traveller. Needless to state that any such step should not be taken in haste and must be proceeded by appropriate legal opinion and with a pragmatic approach,”
The apex court further stated that such poorly considered actions could tarnish the country’s reputation on international platforms and violate the human rights of individuals involved.
As a result, the court declared the petitioner’s arrest, as well as the FIR and all related proceedings, to be unlawful and quashed them.
It also concluded that the writ petition pending before the High Court, along with any ongoing proceedings in the relevant trial court, would be terminated.
The petitioner has the right to seek appropriate remedies for damages in the suitable forum.