The Supreme Court on Monday refused to examine a plea questioning provisions of the Income Tax Act that authorise tax officials to conduct search and seizure operations without prior notice, including access to computers and digital platforms, during investigations into suspected tax evasion.

 A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest petition challenging Section 132(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the corresponding provisions contained in Sections 247(1)(a)(ii) and 247(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is scheduled to come into force on April 1, 2026.

The petitioner had contended that the provisions confer sweeping powers on tax authorities to access devices, emails, cloud storage and other digital records during raids without prior notice, raising concerns about potential misuse and the absence of adequate safeguards against harassment of taxpayers.

The Bench, however, indicated that such apprehensions were premature. Justice Bagchi observed that the Court could not invalidate a statutory framework merely on the basis of possible misuse, particularly when legal remedies exist to challenge any unlawful action.

“We cannot second guess a provision to the extent of remedy provided. Remedy is good enough for us,” he remarked.

Chief Justice Kant similarly noted that the concerns expressed in the petition were largely speculative and that the expanded powers appeared aimed at addressing cases involving substantial tax evasion.

“This is an initial apprehension and some provisions may appear capable of misuse. Courts may have to examine it later. But often these mechanisms get streamlined. These enactments are generally aimed at large-scale tax evaders,” he observed.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, argued that while authorities may not be required to disclose reasons for searches beforehand, there should at least be an internal process requiring officials to record those reasons so they can be scrutinised later if the action is challenged.

He pointed out that the law currently contains provisions stating that the reasons recorded by tax authorities for initiating search and seizure operations need not be disclosed to any person, authority or even the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

“While I concede that reasons need not be disclosed in advance, there should be a mechanism within the institution where those reasons are recorded so they can later be relied upon. Systems can be improved so that assessees are not unnecessarily harassed,” Hegde submitted, also referring to observations made in audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

The Bench indicated that it was not inclined to enter into a detailed examination of these issues at this stage.

Hegde subsequently sought permission to withdraw the plea in order to approach the Union government with his concerns.

Chief Justice Kant clarified that the Court was not directing the petitioner to pursue that course.

“We do not want to oblige anyone. If you want to go, you can go,” he said.

The Court then permitted the withdrawal of the petition, leaving the petitioner at liberty to seek clarifications from the government regarding the disputed provisions.

The plea, filed by Vishwaprasad Alva through advocate Pranjal Kishore, had sought a declaration that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional or, alternatively, a direction to read them down so as to align them with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It had also requested the Court to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes to frame detailed guidelines governing search operations, media disclosures and grievance redress mechanisms to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards.