The petitioners challenged the validity of arrests made under the Customs Act, 1962, and the CGST Act, 2017, contending that the offences under these Acts were non-cognizable and bailable, and that officers lacked authority to arrest without a warrant. Reliance was placed on Om Prakash v. Union of India (2011) 14 SCC 1, which had held such offences as non-cognizable.

The Supreme Court examined the amendments made to the Customs Act in 2012, 2013, and 2019, which explicitly classified certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable while retaining others as non-cognizable and bailable. The Court held that post these amendments, the ratio of Om Prakash no longer applied, as Parliament had consciously modified the legal position.

The Court further clarified that customs and GST officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but they are bound by procedural safeguards enshrined in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Officers must record “reasons to believe” before arrest, inform the arrestee of grounds of arrest, and comply with the procedural safeguards under Sections 41-B, 41-D, 50-A, and 55-A of the CrPC. The right of an arrestee to meet an advocate during interrogation, though not throughout, was reaffirmed.

The Supreme Court upheld the power of arrest under the Customs Act and the CGST Act but imposed mandatory procedural compliance to protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary detention.