Calcutta High Court Declines To Hear Plea Alleging Torture By DRI Officials, Says Matter Falls Under Revenue Bench

A Calcutta High Court bench has declined to hear a plea alleging that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials tortured three individuals during interrogation and forced them to execute an affidavit and declaration.

The court held that the main challenge concerned customs summons and fell under the roster dealing with revenue matters.

“Considering the above and going through the summons and the averments made in the petition, this court finds that the petitioners have mainly challenged the summons issued by the respondent authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the case arose from the said issuance of summons, thus, it cannot be said that there is an overlapping between two Groups matter,” Justice Krishna Rao ruled.

Dilip Pujara and two others alleged that DRI officials tortured them during interrogation at the agency's Kolkata office on September 17 and 18, 2026. They sought an independent investigation into the alleged torture and the preparation and execution of an affidavit and declaration, which they claimed were obtained at the DRI's direction.

They also sought preservation of CCTV footage from the DRI office. The petitioners asked the court to declare their statements, affidavit and declaration invalid and incapable of being relied upon by the DRI.

The petition further challenged summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners also sought a declaration that a payment of ₹6 crore made under protest on September 18, 2026, was not on account of evaded duty.

The authorities objected to the Bench hearing the matter, arguing that the challenge fell under Group IV of the High Court's roster, which deals with revenue and tax matters. The petitioners argued that their prayers concerning alleged human-rights violations and preservation of CCTV footage also brought the case within the residuary roster.

The court noted that the petitioners had not complained to any authority about the alleged torture during interrogation or search.

The West Bengal Human Rights Commission informed the court that it had received no complaint about the alleged torture. The court also noted that a reply the petitioners sent to the DRI's Assistant Director on September 28, 2026, made no mention of torture during the search or interrogation.

Finding that the plea primarily challenged customs summons, the court held that the matter fell under the revenue roster. It allowed the petitioners to approach the appropriate court, without deciding whether the torture allegations were true or whether the summons were valid.

For the Union of India: Senior Advocate Vipul Kundalia and Advocate Nadeem Sulaiman.

For Respondent No. 10: Advocate Tapan Bhanja.