Last Updated:
The court held that the confiscation of the gold jewellery from the petitioner, Thanushika, was illegal and directed the immediate release of the ornaments
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, while quashing the customs department’s confiscation order, held that the seizure was not only against legal provisions but also amounted to disregarding cultural and religious sentiments. (Representational image)
The Madras High Court has strongly criticised the customs officials at Chennai International Airport for forcibly seizing the Thaali Kodi (mangalsutra) of a Sri Lankan woman and detaining her and her family for nearly 12 hours. The court held that the confiscation of the gold jewellery from the petitioner, Thanushika, was illegal and directed the immediate release of the ornaments.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, while quashing the customs department’s confiscation order, held that the seizure was not only against legal provisions but also amounted to disregarding cultural and religious sentiments. The court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the customs officers treated the petitioner, stating that snatching her Thaali Kodi showed a lack of sensitivity toward Hindu traditions.
“The act of the 2nd respondent amounts to annihilate the customs of Hindu religion and the culture of this Country,” said the court.
Thanushika, a Sri Lankan citizen, had come to India to visit temples in Tamil Nadu after her marriage. She was supposed to go to France with her husband after their trip to India. She arrived in Chennai on December 30, 2023, along with her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and three children. She was allegedly carrying 166 grams of gold, including bangles and a Thaali Kodi, as part of her personal belongings. Upon arrival, customs officials at the airport intercepted her and seized the jewellery, claiming it exceeded the permissible limit under the Baggage Rules, 2016.
The petitioner alleged that customs officers mistreated her and her family, forced them into a locked room without food or water, and coerced them into signing documents falsely stating that the gold was smuggled. She further claimed that officials forcibly removed her Thaali Kodi, despite her repeated pleas and emotional distress. The customs department, however, denied these allegations and maintained that the gold was seized lawfully under the Customs Act.
The high court found that the customs officers failed to follow due process. It ruled that the Baggage Rules, 2016, which prohibit foreign nationals from carrying gold beyond a specified limit, could not override the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice Ramasamy also held that jewellery worn on the person does not constitute “baggage” and, therefore, could not be subjected to the restrictions imposed by the rules.
The court also stressed that the customs officer had seized the Thaali Kodi of the petitioner without even considering the sentiments.
Referring to Hindu customs, the court underscored the cultural significance of a Thaali Kodi in a married woman’s life and criticised customs officials for disregarding religious sentiments. It noted that a newly married woman wearing 88 grams of gold as Thaali Kodi was not unusual and that treating it as smuggled gold was unwarranted.
Additionally, the court observed inconsistencies in the customs department’s records. The seizure report falsely stated that the petitioner had concealed the gold under her clothing, while the official counter-affidavit admitted that she was wearing the jewellery openly. This contradiction, the court noted, demonstrated an attempt to frame the petitioner unfairly.
In its order, the high court directed the customs department to release the seized gold within 7 days and ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the officers involved.
“As far as the 2nd respondent/S.Mythili, Seizing Officer is concerned, as discussed above, since her conduct is unbecoming as an Officer, she has to be necessarily enquired and appropriate action has to be taken against her by the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS Customs),” ordered the court while referring the matter to the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS-Customs).