Yamal Manojbhai vs Union of India & Ors.
Background
Yamal Manojbhai, an NRI, was arrested at Delhi airport in October 2022 after customs officials allegedly found several high-value smuggled watches on him when he passed through the "green channel" (the lane for passengers declaring nothing dutiable). He initially filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court only seeking home-cooked food as an undertrial prisoner, but later expanded his plea to seek a direction letting him approach the Customs Settlement Commission to pay the duty and interest owed and obtain immunity from prosecution. The dispute turned on whether Section 123 of the Customs Act (which applies to watches, gold and similar goods and reverses the burden of proof onto the accused) also bars such goods from being settled under Section 127B, and different High Courts (Bombay vs Delhi) had taken opposite views on this question.
Decision Breakdown
Justice Krishna Murari, writing the first opinion, held that the Bombay High Court's view was correct: since there was no dispute about the foreign origin of the seized watches, Section 123's evidentiary bar was effectively irrelevant, and the petitioner could not be denied access to the Settlement Commission's remedy. He also held the writ petition maintainable despite its narrow original prayer, given the wider constitutional importance of the issue and Article 32's role in protecting personal liberty. Justice Sanjay Karol disagreed on both counts: he held that Section 127B's own proviso expressly excludes goods covered under Section 123 (including watches) from settlement regardless of any dispute over origin, since allowing settlement would defeat the deterrent purpose of the confiscation and criminal-prosecution provisions; he also found the writ petition itself was an improper and possibly mala fide attempt to smuggle in an unrelated statutory relief under cover of a fundamental-rights petition originally about prison food, and would have dismissed it outright. Because of this direct disagreement, no final decision was reached: the matter was ordered to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions (typically, referral to a larger bench).
Lesson Learnt
When two judges on a bench genuinely disagree on the outcome, the case is not resolved by majority of one side's reasoning being "more persuasive". It must be referred up to a larger bench, meaning the underlying legal question (here, whether smuggled watches can ever go to the Settlement Commission) remained unsettled after this hearing.