The Supreme Court on October 13, 2025, allowed a petition challenging the illegal detention of an Indian citizen at Delhi Airport while he was travelling back to Italy for allegedly possessing prohibited wildlife material. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that detaining the petitioner despite an official report confirming that the seized article did not violate any Indian law, amounted to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.
The case arose on January 16, 2025 when the petitioner while transiting through the Delhi Domestic Airport was apprehended for allegedly carrying a deer horn in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The registration of an FIr was subsequently carried out for illegally purchasing a part of a wild animal, declared as government property by the Act. However, he was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tis Hazari Courts, on 22.01.25 with conditions that included two sureties and a prohibition on foreign travel but due to procedural delays in furnishing sureties, he remained detained for 14 days. While he sought to quash the FIR and the release of his passport before the High Court, the matter remained pending. Following this, the forensic report from the Wildlife Institute of India dated 20.01.25 stated that the seized article was a reindeer horn which was not protected under the Act. The High Court however, still did not grant relief which compelled the petitioner to approach the Court seeking directions for the release of his passport, permission to return to Italy and an inquiry into alleged human rights violations during detention. Additionally, the ASG also agreed that, in light of the forensic report, prosecution was not warranted and a closure report by the police would likely be filed.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s prolonged hardship and the admitted fact that the seized item was not covered under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and stated that continued prosecution would be gross abuse of process, particularly when the petitioner had already suffered a delayed custody and risked loss of employment abroad. The Court also expressed concern over the arbitrary detention of international travellers and directed authorities at airports to exercise caution and legal discretion before making hasty arrests in such cases. Therefore, the Court released the petitioner and granted him the liberty to pursue compensation for damages, while broader issues concerning bail and human rights violations were left open for consideration. Accordingly, the Court quashed the arrest and all proceedings and allowed the petition.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Mr. Wills Mathews, Adv. Ms. S. Soorya Gayathry, Adv. Ms. Anila Tharkan Thomas, Adv. Mr. Dhanesh M Nair, Adv. Ms. Shweta Garg, AOR
