Fundamental Rights serve as the cornerstone of any democratic nation, and India is no exception. The Indian Constitution has enshrined these rights to ensure the essential human dignity of every citizen. Among these rights, the right to privacy, recognized in the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India in 2017, holds significant weight. It is against this backdrop that Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 comes under scrutiny. Introduced originally in 1961, this section has sparked controversy due to perceived violations of fundamental rights.
Unveiling Section 132 of the Income Tax Act,1961
Section 132 replaced the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 after its revocation by the Supreme Court. The root cause of its cancellation lay in its unequal treatment of a certain class of assesses, contravening Article 14 of the Constitution. Unlike the pre-existing income-tax law of 1922, Section 132 armed tax authorities with the power to conduct searches and seizures without a judicial warrant. It permitted authorities to search and possibly seize any concealed or evaded income found in buildings, places, vehicles, or aircraft.
The Legal Challenges: Examining the Constitutionality of Section 132
The legitimacy of Section 132 was questioned in the case of Pooran Mal vs Director of Inspection in 1973. Despite the Supreme Court affirming its constitutionality, later developments brought a paradigm shift. The position of the law changed over time, overturning the judgment of M.P. Sharma, which did not recognize the right to privacy. Today, the right to privacy forms an integral part of personal liberty as per Article 21 of the Constitution.
Unresolved Issues: The Challenges Surrounding Section 132
Amidst numerous criticisms, Section 132 is believed to infringe upon the Doctrine of Proportionality. This doctrine holds that state power should not only aim for a legitimate purpose and be rationally connected to its objective but also ensure a balance between the means employed and the rights violated. Critics argue against the Wednesbury principle post-Puttaswamy judgment, asserting that executive action must strictly adhere to statutory law when it concerns fundamental rights.
Another grave concern arises from a potential violation of the right to privacy, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The lack of safeguards during Income Tax searches poses a severe threat to individual privacy, often resulting in possible abuse of power.
A Closer Look at Disproportional Searches
The duration and conditions of searches under Section 132 have elicited widespread criticism. A striking example comes from the Gujarat High Court, which questioned a raid where individuals were held in virtual detention for days without adequate safeguards.
Navigating through the Challenges: Recommendations for Improvement
Addressing these criticisms requires enhancing the judiciary’s role in reviewing the application of Section 132. There are calls to replace the Wednesbury principle with more rigorous scrutiny to assess the proportionality of executive actions. An independent oversight mechanism or ombudsman could prove beneficial in investigating complaints, ensuring accountability, and recommending corrective measures in cases of potential misuse of power. Limiting the duration and extent of IT searches is another measure critical to safeguarding human rights.
This discourse on Section 132 and the surrounding controversies underscores the vital need to strike a harmonious balance between enforcing law and respecting individual rights. As India continues to evolve as a democratic republic, it remains imperative to uphold its constitutional ethos while seeking innovative solutions to contemporary legal challenges.