The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a petition challenging provisions of the Income Tax Act, 2025 that empower tax authorities to conduct raids without prior notice and search digital devices such as phones, computers and cloud storage during tax evasion investigations.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Vishwaprasad Alva against provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the corresponding provisions under the new Income Tax Act, 2025, which is set to come into force on April 1, 2026.
FCRF Launches Flagship Certified Fraud Investigator (CFI) Program
Court declines to interfere
During the hearing, the Supreme Court indicated that it was not inclined to examine the challenge at this stage.
The Court observed that it cannot strike down statutory provisions merely on apprehensions of misuse when adequate legal remedies already exist.
Justice Bagchi remarked, “We cannot second guess a provision to the extent of remedy provided. Remedy is good enough for us.”
Chief Justice Surya Kant also noted that the concerns raised by the petitioner were largely speculative.
He said, “This is an initial apprehension… some provisions may look like they can be misused, but often these are streamlined and meant for big tax evaders.”
Petition raised privacy concerns
The plea had challenged Section 132(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the corresponding Section 247(1)(a)(ii) and Section 247(1)(b) of the new Income Tax Act, 2025.
According to the petitioner, the provisions grant broad search and seizure powers to income tax authorities, including the ability to access:
- Mobile phones
- Emails
- Computer systems
- Cloud-based data and other digital records
during tax raids without prior notice.
The petition argued that these powers could potentially violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty.
FutureCrime Summit 2026: Registrations to Open Soon for India’s Biggest Cybercrime Conference
Call for safeguards against misuse
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even if authorities are not required to disclose reasons for conducting raids beforehand, there should be an internal mechanism to record those reasons.
He told the Court that such records could later be examined if the search action is challenged, ensuring accountability and preventing harassment of taxpayers.
However, the Bench said it was not inclined to delve deeper into the issue at this stage.
Petition withdrawn
Following the Court’s observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea in order to approach the Union government for clarification regarding the disputed provisions.
The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the petition, leaving the question open for possible future challenge.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
