'Don't Detain International Travellers In Haste' : Supreme Court Cites Rolex Watch Seizure At Airport; Quashes Case Against NRI

In a strong message to enforcement and airport authorities, the Supreme Court has cautioned against the hasty detention and arrest of international traveller and directed that such actions should be taken only after obtaining appropriate legal opinion and adopting a pragmatic approach. The Court warned that ill-advised arrests at airports could tarnish India's image globally and violate human rights.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations while quashing the arrest and criminal proceedings against Rocky Abraham, an Indian citizen settled in Italy for over two decades, who was detained at the Delhi airport in January 2025 for allegedly carrying a deer horn in violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Abraham, who had travelled from Italy to Kochi via Delhi for a vacation and medical treatment, was arrested after airport officials found the horn in his baggage and registered an FIR under Sections 39, 49, and 51 of the Act. He remained in custody for nearly two weeks before securing bail with onerous conditions, including a ban on leaving India.

However, a forensic report from the Wildlife Institute of India later confirmed that the seized article was a reindeer horn, a species not listed under any of the schedules of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Despite this, the case lingered before the Delhi High Court, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.

The Bench invoked its powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution to quash the FIR, calling the prosecution “patently illegal and unjust.” The Court said that continuing the case would amount to a “gross abuse of process of law.”

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union of India, fairly conceded that in view of the forensic findings, prosecution was unwarranted and that the police would likely file a closure report.

Need for sensitisation of airport officials

The Bench expressed concern over arbitrary actions by authorities at airports and directed that “jurisdictional agencies handling affairs at international airports must sensitise their officers in prevailing laws before taking the drastic step of detention and arrest.”

The Court emphasised that “any such step should not be taken in haste and must be preceded by appropriate legal opinion and a pragmatic approach.”

Referring to a recent incident at Jaipur International Airport where an 80-year-old traveller from Dubai was detained and his Rolex watch seized as a “luxury good" and was ultimately found to be lawfully owned, the Court remarked that such actions “tend to bring the reputation of the country to disrepute in the international fora.”

This Court feels an imminent need to require the jurisdictional agencies concerned, handling affairs at the international airports, to sensitize their officers in the prevailing laws before taking the drastic step of detention and arrest of an international traveler. Needless to state that any such step should not be taken in haste and must be proceeded by appropriate legal opinion and with a pragmatic approach.
Such ill-advised actions tend to bring the reputation of the country to disrepute in the international fora in addition to bringing the conduct of the concerned officers in breach of the human rights guarantees.

Declaring Abraham's arrest and the FIR unlawful, the Court quashed all related proceedings and granted him liberty to seek damages before the appropriate forum.

The Court had also impleaded NALSA in the case to consider the issue of onerous bail conditions. The petitioner had also sought directions for digital verification of sureties to obviate delay in the release of prisoners who have secured bail.

However, having regard to the fact the issue of onerous bail conditions is being considered in another matter (In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, SMWP (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021), the Court desisted from dealing with it in the present case.

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Wills Mathews, Ms. S. Soorya Gayathry, Ms. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Mr. Subham Vashishth, Mr. Rakesh Garg, Mr. Ashish Gopal Garg, and Ms. Shweta Garg, AOR.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati for the Union; Adv Rashmi Nandakumar for NALSA

Case : Rocky Abraham v Union of India WP(Crl) 331/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Click here to read the judgment