SC: Must Record Reasons for Warrantless Searches
September 15, 2025
Supreme Court: Recording Reasons Is Mandatory for Searches Without Warrant Under Special Laws
Top Court Says, ‘Reasons to Believe’ Must Be Clear, Relevant, and Based on Evidence — Not Mere Suspicion
Ruling in ITC Ltd Case Quashes Search and Seizure for Violating Legal Metrology Act and CrPC Safeguards
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi, September 15, 2025 — The Supreme Court has ruled that any search conducted without a warrant under special laws must be backed by recorded reasons to believe, and those reasons must be relevant, specific, and based on credible information — not mere suspicion.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said this requirement is mandatory under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — now Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — and applies equally to searches under special enactments such as the Legal Metrology Act, Income Tax Act, Customs Act, Central Excise Act, GST Act, and NDPS Act.
“The reasons necessitating the search must reflect application of mind based on some information — either from a third party or personal knowledge — and cannot be based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations,” the Court observed.
The Case: ITC Limited vs State of Karnataka
The ruling came in a case involving ITC Limited, whose commercial warehouse in Karnataka was searched by officials under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
- Date of Search: During business hours, without a warrant.
- Seized Goods: 7,600 pre-packed wholesale packages of Classmate brand exercise books.
- Alleged Violation: Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Section 36(1) of the 2009 Act.
The search and seizure were carried out without recording any reasons for the action
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court held that:
- Recording Reasons Is Non-Negotiable
- Under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, an officer must have “reason to believe” that an offence has been committed or is likely to be committed, and that relevant evidence is available on the premises.
- These reasons must be written down before conducting a search or seizure.
- CrPC Safeguards Apply to Special Laws
- Special enactments often incorporate CrPC provisions for search and seizure.
- Even in urgent situations where a warrant cannot be obtained, Section 100 CrPC procedures must be followed.
- Inspection vs Search
- Inspection: Verification of books, records, or documents to check compliance, with prior authorisation and recorded reasons.
- Search: Broader power to look for goods, documents, or materials believed to be concealed, which may be seized.
- The Court said seizure cannot happen without a valid search, and both require compliance with legal safeguards.
- Independent Witness Requirement
- Presence of two respectable independent witnesses is mandatory during search and seizure.
- In this case, one “witness” was the driver of the inspecting authority — a clear violation.
Why the Search Was Declared Illegal
The Court found multiple procedural violations:
- No warrant obtained.
- No reasons recorded for search, inspection, or seizure.
- No proof that the situation was so urgent as to justify skipping a warrant.
- Improper witness procedure.
As a result, the entire search and seizure were declared illegal and unsustainable, and the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench order upholding the action was quashed. The Single Judge’s order in favour of ITC was restored.
Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed
- Due Process Is Paramount — Safeguards in CrPC and special laws exist to prevent arbitrary action.
- ‘Reasons to Believe’ Must Be Genuine — They must be based on tangible information, not vague suspicion.
- Procedural Violations Vitiate Proceedings — If the initial search is illegal, all subsequent actions based on it are invalid.
- Open Premises Still Protected — Just because a place is open to the public during business hours does not mean officers can bypass legal requirements.
Impact Beyond This Case
This ruling will influence enforcement under multiple special laws, including:
- Tax laws (Income Tax, GST, Customs, Excise)
- Regulatory laws (Legal Metrology, Food Safety, Drugs and Cosmetics)
- Criminal laws (NDPS Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act)
Authorities will now have to be meticulous in documenting reasons before conducting warrantless searches, or risk having their actions struck down in court.
Expert Reactions
Legal experts say the judgment strengthens constitutional protections against arbitrary searches.
A senior criminal lawyer noted:
“This decision reinforces that procedural safeguards are not technicalities — they are fundamental rights protections. Agencies must follow the law to the letter.”
Practical Takeaways for Enforcement Agencies
- Always record reasons in writing before a warrantless search.
- Ensure independent witnesses are present.
- Follow CrPC procedures even under special laws.
- Distinguish between inspection and search — and apply the correct legal process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the ITC case is a strong reminder that the ends do not justify the means in law enforcement. Even when acting under special statutes, authorities must respect due process, record their reasons, and follow procedural safeguards — or risk having their actions invalidated.
By insisting on transparency and accountability, the Court has reinforced the principle that the rule of law protects both the State’s interests and citizens’ rights.
EXPLAINER:
Legal Requirements vs What Happened in the ITC Case
|
What the Law Requires |
Relevant Provision |
What Happened in the ITC Case |
Supreme Court’s Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Officer must have “reason to believe” before search — based on credible info, not suspicion. |
Section 15, Legal Metrology Act; Section 165 CrPC (now Section 185 BNSS) |
No reasons recorded before search. |
Search invalid — recording reasons is mandatory. |
|
Reasons must be written down before search/seizure |
Section 165(1) CrPC |
No written record of reasons. |
Procedural safeguard violated. |
|
Warrant required unless urgent circumstances exist |
Section 165(1) CrPC |
No warrant obtained; no proof of urgency. |
No justification for bypassing warrant. |
|
Independent witnesses must be present during search |
Section 100(4) CrPC |
One “witness” was the officer’s driver. |
Witness requirement not met. |
|
Inspection vs Search — Inspection is limited verification; search is broader and needs stricter safeguards. |
Legal Metrology Act & Rules |
Seizure done without valid search process. |
Seizure illegal as search itself was invalid. |
|
Follow CrPC procedures even under special laws |
Section 15(6) Legal Metrology Act |
CrPC safeguards ignored. |
CrPC applies; non-compliance voids action. |
Why This Table Works for Readers
- Quick Scan: Shows the gap between law and action.
- Clarity: Explains why the Court quashed the search.
- Educational: Helps readers understand their rights under search laws.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
Paying for Daughter’s Marriage is a Father’s Duty, Orders ₹10 Lakh Contribution Despite Divorce
Supreme Court Orders All Bail Pleas to Be Decided Within Two Months to Protect Personal Liberty
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If Even One Relief Is Maintainable
SC Orders SIT with Hindu-Muslim Officers to Probe 2023 Akola Clashes
Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence
Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine
Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match