AUGUST 05, 2025

Voluntary Detention & Other Oxymorons

By Vijay Kumar

LET us recall last week's Jest GST - Arrest - Custody and Cameras

Enforcement Meets Constitutional Protections

A seemingly "voluntary" visit by Bharat Lal Garg to the DGGI office on June 4, 2025, turned into a 29-hour undocumented detention - until his wife filed a Habeas Corpus petition.

Key Developments

Unlawful Custody Alleged: No arrest memo was issued within 24 hours. Bharat was allegedly injured during this time and remained unproduced before a Magistrate.

Court Interventions:

- Found prima facie violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

- Ordered DGGI to disclose officers' names, CCTV status, and medical records.

Missing Surveillance

DGGI claimed CCTV malfunction due to construction - yet other digital systems functioned normally. Court suspected intentional disabling.

Questions Raised

These questions emerged as central to the case:

1. Can overnight detention be considered "voluntary"?

2. Is arrest lawful without proper Section 69 compliance under CGST Act?

3. When must grounds of arrest be shared - with restraint or at formal arrest?

Findings by the Court

Arrest Authorization: Based on mere e-filed proposals, without recorded satisfaction or examination of material - held to be mechanical and legally defective.

Grounds of Arrest: Furnished well after restraint was imposed; not immediate - thus violating due process.

Psychological Coercion: Detention induced fear and restricted liberty without a cognizable offense - rendering it effectively an arrest.

Procedural Safeguards Reiterated

- Statements must be recorded during office hours.

- Right to have counsel present (in visible range).

- CCTV recording of proceedings.

Thus:

- Bharat Lal Garg entered DGGI's fortress for what was marketed as a voluntary visit.

- 29 hours, bruises, and blurry surveillance later, his wife Barkha knocked on the High Court's door waving Habeas Corpus.

- CCTV footage? Under scaffolding, like accountability.

- Fundamental rights? Apparently also under maintenance.

I concluded with:

Positively not the end

The matter is listed on 30.07.2025 for further consideration. The Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence is directed to file an affidavit showing complete compliance of the directions regarding CCTV on or before the next date of hearing and also to deliberate therein why the directions issued by the Court regarding production of record are not complied with.

An ardent reader (also very critical) of Jest GST called me and asked, "what happened on 30th July?

Obviously, I can't leave the story unfinished.

Here's what happened on 30th July 2025 in the Barkha Bansal case - 2025-TIOL-1232-HC-P&H-GST

The Additional Director General, DGGI, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, has filed an affidavit in the Court, which primarily stated:

5. That with specific reference to the direction contained in the order dated 18.07.2025 regarding compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others, (2021) 1 SCC 184, it is respectfully submitted that that CCTV cameras have been installed at the Office space of DGGI within Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Such cameras were always functional and they continue to remain functional. The cameras were temporarily non-functional due to construction work being carried out at the premises. It is also submitted that the cameras were non-functional since 30th May 2025 as duly recorded in the register.

The office was not aware about the events that will unfold on 4th / 5th June 2025. On 2nd June 2025, a correspondence regarding repair of cameras is also on record.

6. This office has recorded several statements in the presence of CCTV cameras. However, on certain occasions in the past, the cameras became non-operational for limited periods due to unforeseen technical issues which has duly been recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and swift action was taken to make them functional.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to avoid such situations in future, all the Senior Intelligence officers, who are entrusted with recording statements, have been instructed to ensure that CCTV cameras are functional before commencing the statement.

8. It has also been noted that in case of any construction activities which can interfere with the proper functioning of will be undertaken in such a way that tgey (they) do not interfere with the smooth functioning of CCTV cameras and there is alternative arrangement in case the cameras working is to be effected by the construction work.

9. The power switch of the cameras has also been enclosed within a locked enclosure to prevent any accidental shutdown.

10. That pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2025, deponent had ensured timely compilation of the requisite original records including the arrest memo, grounds of arrest, medical examination report and other documents, and the same were with the officer of the deponent present in the court. The same was passed on to the counsel for presenting before the Hon'ble court. However, due to some confusion at the material time regarding production in sealed envelope or otherwise, the same could not be shown to the court on 18.7.2025.

The record was available with the counsel during the hearing on 18.7.2025 and the deponent was also present in court during the hearing on 18.7.2025.

11. The non-placement of these records on record of the Hon'ble Court is due to circumstances beyond the control of the deponent. The deponent has never withheld any record from the Hon'ble Court intentionally or otherwise. The deponent tenders unconditional apology for non-presentation of the record.

12. That considering the confusion qua production of record on 18.07.2025, the officer Sh. Gurdhyan Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer has been instructed to carry the original records to be produced before this Hon'ble court on 30th July 2025.

13. That in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court issued vide order dated 02.07.2025, deponent has filed an affidavit before this Hon'ble Court on the previous date of hearing i.e. 18.07.2025.

14. That as regards arrest of Bharat Lal made in this case, it is pertinent to mention here that there was complete application of mind and the arrest was not done mechanically.

15. That as regard the allegation of causing obstruction to the warrant officer is concerned, it was stated in the earlier affidavit that the deponent was not present on the spot where the warrant officer was situated at the material time. Neither the warrant officer nor the petitioner has levelled any allegations against the deponent. There is no wilful or intentional disregard of any of the order/directions of the Hon'ble Court. The deponent may kindly be discharged from the contempt notice.

The deponent once again tenders unconditional apology, in case any of the officer of the department obstructed the warrant officer from discharging his official duty.

16. As regards the issues related to recording of statement overnight is concerned, the concerned SIO has stated his version in the affidavit filed in this regard and it is once again reiterated that the statement was recorded only after the consent of Bharat Lal and at no stage Bharat Lal had expressed that he does not want to record his statement at night. His statement has not been retracted.

17. In order to avoid any such situation in future, the instructions related to recording of statement during the office hours under CCTV surveillance have already been given.

The High Court found it appropriate to accept the explanation provided in the affidavit.

The Court further observed,

However, it is expected that such a conduct will not be repeated and that the Directorate General, Goods & Service Tax Intelligence will fully cooperate with any Court appointed officers, should such a situation presents itself in the future.

Now, we know that:

- CCTV cameras exist, just like promises - present but not always functioning.

- Statements are routinely recorded under CCTV.

- Henceforth, officers must confirm visibility - not just metaphorically but optically.

- Future construction must promise not to demolish transparency.

Sorry Seems to Be the Safest Word

- The lapse? Accidental.

- The apology? Unconditional.

- The sincerity? Court-certified.

Consent is Key, Especially After Midnight

- Statement of Shri Bharat Lal was recorded overnight - with his consent and no signs of regret.

- Retraction, resistance, or rebellion? None recorded.

- Institutional amnesia invoked due to construction dust.

- Functional visibility affirmed - by lens, not by conscience.

- Statements: Recorded, reviewed, and now optically verified.

- Construction work will henceforth avoid demolishing transparency.

- Rights don't run on good faith. They run on record - and reels.

In an age where surveillance can vanish behind scaffolding and constitutional safeguards appear in footnotes, the line between oversight and overreach grows increasingly glitched. Rights, it seems, require not just recognition but relentless reinforcement - preferably with working lenses and time stamped sincerity. When error codes become explanations, one truth remains: liberty isn't preserved by intention alone. It demands documentation, diligence, and the rare courage to stay visible - especially when the cameras don't.

Promises of transparency crumble without tools that actually work, while accountability risks becoming a seasonal feature - visible only when the dust settles and the tarpaulin lifts. Let rights be upheld not by mood or renovation schedules, but by systems that serve, not surveil.

The cameras may blink, but the questions don't.